ANSWERS: 10
  • Soda pop contributes nothing to the overall health of anyone so I see no problem with taxing it except these taxes are called usury fees like so many other hidden taxes. If you want to raise money to fund government call it what it is and stop hiding shit under usury fees.
  • go figure a twix is less taxed than a hershey candy bar. +5
  • This is nothing but a form of luxury tax used by governments to raise revenues . These revenues are then used to offset mismanagement of tax dollars.
  • If the government can tax soda, then it can tax chocolate, cheeseburgers, tacos, french fries and shakes. if you allow them one exception then you have set precedent for them to tax anything. we are free to do as we please and we should be responsible to pay the consequences for our actions. we would be socially responsible to follow a healthy diet.
  • The government shouldn't have to punish us into being healthy. I know that people getting fat off of soda and such leads to higher healthcare costs and such, but we should make it our goal to nip that problem in the bud with education and instillment of values of responsibility for one's health.
  • It's also known as a "sin tax". Such have been levied already against, booze, tobacco, and where appropriate: prostitution.
  • They don't know what the hell to tax anymore, why don't the close the fucking borders on people who are comming here getting CASH jobs and using the Hospital Clinics for babies and health issues, those are in the millions...Get the assholes off welfare....Create some jobs and get rid of grants as to the effects of tomatoes...They are spending so much money and nonsense...
  • But Obama said no taxes on the poor.
  • I say bring it on. If something that we consume is so addictive and/or destructive to the point of significantly affecting the national average in overall health, then why not issue a tax to curb such consumption? Why not use the tax to mirror the claim that responsible use requires moderation? Why should tobacco receive a terrible stigma if it rivals in harm to junk food, which even children can buy with their meager allowances? I don't understand how a person can claim that one must be responsible with his own body while also claiming that a tax is unnecessary. With overall health declining as it is, why should we believe that we *are* being responsible? that this responsibility that we should have is actually present and effective? It is well and good to talk of being responsible, but another thing to do it. We are showing ourselves that we cannot tolerate moderation. How many billions should we spend on our health before we spend it instead at the source, the product itself? We should merely transfer the money spent from the future to the present. The deterrent would change from being someone you know suffering from poor consumption choices to a spike in cost. Overall health increases, money spent on hurting ourselves decreases. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy