|
||
|
PETITCHEF |
Add your blog-site | Add your recipes | Receive daily menu | Contact us | |
Sin taxes on soda pop? Part I
Does this outrage you? Before we get out our pitchforks and begin raging against the machine - I mean the feds - let's think about this. What is a sin tax? To quote Investopedia, it's "a state-sponsored tax added to products or services that are seen as vices...levied by governments to discourage...such activities." Such activities currently include alcohol and cigarettes - both consumer products which are generally considered to be bad, both health-wise and socially. Much as I would love to explore the reasoning on making cigarettes and alcohol heavily taxed "taboo" products, that's another can of worms for another post. So, why would soda be sin-taxed? The WSJ quotes Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, saying "Soda is clearly one of the most harmful products in the food supply, and it's something the government should discourage the consumption of." Interestingly, this tax is being considered as an option to supplement funds for public health care. Over the period of four years, this 3 cent tax per 12oz soda is estimated to generate $24 billion. But soda? How could they! Soda isn't a sin, there isn't anything wrong with it - why make soda-drinkers pay for social health care? Is nothing sacred!? *disclaimer: all of the statements above were intended to be satirical.* Ok, let's compare. What are a few reasons most people find sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes socially, morally and legally acceptable? they're terrible for your healththey're really, REALLY terrible for your healththey're addictivethey often cause delinquent, irresponsible behaviorthey draw in the lower class who works hard, wants release and doesn't have money to go on vacation they cause people, usually of the lower class, to become dependent on a certain industry-driven substancethey're expensive, and waste the money of consumers who, let's face it, don't have much money to wastethey're societal taboos they're found morally offensive to many societal groupsEvery single one of these points can easily be applied to soda and all soda's relatives. Sure, mjmojo, you say. Most of them apply, sure, but no one in their right mind finds the soda pop morally offensive! And soda isn't taboo. No? It is in my house, it is in my mother's house, it is in my naturopathic doctor's house, and it is in many of my friends' houses. Why? Well, notice the first seven points. Don't you think cigarettes and alcohol are considered morally offensive and taboo by many people for all those good reasons? Well, if those seven points apply to soda, why shouldn't the last two also? Why the vendetta against soda, you ask. Two reasons: high fructose corn syrup aspartame HFCS is the sweetener used in regular drinks - not just soda, or even beverages. Check your ingredient labels next time you go to the grocery store. I'm not going to try to give you all the reasons why this is bad here, but you can read up on it yourself. Aspartame is the sugar substitute found in all "diet" products, Nutrasweet and Equal. This is a recognized carginogen which has a long list of harmful and deadly side effects, one of which, ironically, is obesity. Again, educate yourself. I have a commercial by the Corn Refiner's Association I want to show you, as well as a more in-depth discussion on the corn syrup and aspartame industries, but this post is getting outta control as it is, so we'll save that for Part II. Think about soda tax. If it makes sense to discourage people from smoking cigarettes with heavy taxes, doesn't a 3 cent tax on harmful beverages make sense? Doesn't it also make sense to have those taxes go into a fund which is allocated to take care of the inevitable health complications of those beverage consumers? Don't agree? Fight me in the comments! And stay tuned for next post's rage against Monsanto... related searches : Sin
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||