Ok, since you seem to be a firm believer in taxes changing behavior, why don't we just tax the results, not the products. ie: tax fat, hypertensive, diabetic people more. That way, responsible people don't have to subsidize poor lifestyle if they happen to want a Coke every once in a while.

I did not say I'm a firm believer in taxing, I believe I said I'm not sure if this is the right thing, but it is trying to do the right thing. And as far as taxes, I do think they have helped in smoking, not too sure about drinking. I think with smokers it is much more of a penalty to smoke, so perhaps the tax has to be much bigger.

And no one is saying you cannot have a coke once in awhile, why do you all keep stretching this to an all out ban? I just want the culture to be changed so that when my kids go out into the world that sugar isn't the #1 ingredient in a lot of the food. I will do my best as a parent to make sure they know what a good choice is, but I would like some help from the community at large once they leave the nest.

And on a macro scale I'm dam sure not happy to have to pay for an obese population that is in the majority. Since we do not just take care of ourselves and it is a shared expense, it would be nice for the rest of us who have healthy lifestyles to be joined by a majority of the others who don't. It would be good for them too.

You can have a coke, but lets not get our kids hooked on them where they have little choice later in life to get on a good track. 50+ years later and all the education, taxes, and rules governing smoking, you can still choose to do it, so I'm not going to buy into I can't have my coke argument.

People believe that, but the numbers do not support that belief.

There is a general consensus among policymakers that raising tobacco taxes reduces cigarette consumption. However, evidence that tobacco taxes reduce adult smoking is relatively sparse.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18326

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I am not worried about an all out ban. I am just saying it's ridiculous that everyone, even responsible people would have to pay $10 for a Coke, just to try to curb irresponsible people's choices.

If we are going to have sin taxes, tax the results. If progressive income taxes are so great (and fair), lets start having unhealthy people who make bad choices, pay higher Medicare/Medicaid, general health care taxes.

I read the report and this was the concluding sentence;

Our evidence suggests that increases in cigarette taxes are associated with small decreases in cigarette consumption and that it will take sizable tax increases, on the order of 100%, to decrease adult smoking by as much as 5%.

Seems like it does work, did you expect it to be 100%? And from when I was younge,r I think the taxes have at least quadrupled the cost of a pack, maybe even more. My brother who was a 4 pack a day guy went to about 1 1/2, and most of that was cost. He was one of those guys that would drive across state or county lines to avoid the taxes, but of course the caught up with him. You can still get cheaper cigs in other places but that is relative to what it used to be. It did not get him to quit, but it absolutely got him to smoke less.


And the study doesn't really address how much the campaign against cigarettes has worked since the surgeon general said they were bad in the 60's. This just seems to address the actual tax and results, how about where that tax money went in public education and what that achieved? It seems like you have to factor that in too, and absolutely we as a society are smoking less and less as time passes. Both my parents smoked but right after that surge general warning they stopped, at least my mom did and dad smoked a little in secret after that. But it for sure changed their outlook and bad habits, and that was just at the very beginning when there were still mostly doubters and heavy pressure still going on from the cig companies..

It would take a 100% sales tax to reduce smoking "by as much as" 5% and that makes you conclude, "Seems like it does work."

You have an interesting definition of "work."

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

your's is the best idea posted. Tax the folks that can't handle their sugar, tobacco, etc not the ones that can. You have diabetes,(boom, your premiums just went through the roof)...you have lung cancer ( boom, you now pay outrageous insurance rates). this is a fair and balanced way to handle the problem.

As for the sugar debate, it absolutely causes your body to go to shit. But it tastes good and there is no reason we should tax it. As a kid I drank unlimited cokes, DR. Pepper, sprite you name it. Never drank Milk, water or anything else. Ate all the candy I wanted. I was thin, athletic and then transitioned to muscular in college. Around 35 I stopped tris and got pudgy due to the bad diet and high sugar intake. Through personal discipline, I lost all the fat and now back to lean and muscular, via diet and exercise. The government played no role in my weight or health at all.

I have three kids and they drink plenty of cokes, root beer etc but are all lean, athletic and never sick. They have a significant sports schedule and do a ton of cardio. Sugar is not the problem, the way people live is the problem.

It would take a 100% sales tax to reduce smoking "by as much as" 5% and that makes you conclude, "Seems like it does work."

You have an interesting definition of "work." //

Well since the price has gone up many, many times the 100%(from my day), I think the 5% rate then becomes more significant. Just having a look at CA taxes + the new federal ones, maybe that 5% is now 20%?


And you ignored my other point on what that tax money then does to help educate, and thus keep people from starting or quitting altogether, of like my brother just cut down. But that is par for the course, once you lock onto something you almost never let it go...(-;


And just a quick perusal of where all the tax monies go, it looks like the majority in fact goes either directly to anti smoking campaigns, and other health related stuff. 10% to general fund and some admin %..

Well, I posted a study showing marginal reductions that still fall within the margin of error of the study. If you think there are other studies showing otherwise, I would task you to find them.




You think that is where the sin tax goes???

Nope: https://www.npr.org/...e-cigarette-money-go

Nope: https://www.cbsnews.com/...-smoking-prevention/



Nope: https://www.npr.org/...e-cigarette-money-go

Nope: https://www.cbsnews.com/...-smoking-prevention/

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Tax allocation in 2016
I guess you can get whatever you want on the net, here is what I found for Ca here;

https://ballotpedia.org/...o_Tax_Increase_(2016)




California levies an excise tax on tobacco products. In 2016, the tobacco tax was 87 cents per pack of cigarettes. Revenue from the tax was distributed as follows:[3]

• 10 cents to the General Fund. About $84 million was raised for the fund in fiscal year 2015-2016 due to this allocation.
• 25 cents towards tobacco prevention, healthcare services for low-income persons, and environmental protection. Proposition 99 of 1988 created this portion of the tax. About $259 million was raised for these services in fiscal year 2015-2016.
• 2 cents towards breast cancer screenings and research. For fiscal year 2015-2016, $20 million was raised for these services.
• 50 cents towards early childhood development programs. Proposition 10 of 1998 created this portion of the tax. About $447 million was raised for these programs in fiscal year 2015-2016.

The federal government also levied a tobacco tax at $1.01 per pack of cigarettes.

And forgot, you do know the difference from a tax and a fine???

This is how the article starts:
Dealing Coke to customers called "heavy users." Selling to teens in an attempt to hook them for life. Scientifically tweaking ratios of salt, sugar and fat to optimize consumer bliss.

How DARE they try to make their products attractive to consumers!

'Scientifically tweaking ratios of salt, sugar and fat to optimize consumer bliss' is a fancy way of saying they're trying to make tasty products that people will buy. In what world is that wrong???

Let me ask you, or anyone else in this thread: are you fit, skinny, overweight, obese? What about any kids of yours? And now let me ask you: how often do you eat fast food, or pizza? Eat a dessert with your dinner? Eat sugary cereals? Drink sugary beverages?

My family has a propensity to run fat, two of my sisters are fairly large, my dad battled with weight for years. I've spent years figuring out what works for me and what I can and can't eat, and just how much exercise I need, for a good healthy balance. I've been overweight but never obese, but the past decade I've been fit and healthy and it's not a battle any more because I know what works for me, how to balance it. When I have kids I'll do my best to teach them.

But I eat dessert MAYBE once a month. I never drink sugary drinks, never eat sugary cereals, I eat fast food maybe once every 2 months, I'll have pizza once a month. And I exercise 5 days a week. This idea that evil corporations are underhandedly tricking consumers into fatness is just dumb to me, I mean every package is required to print the nutritional breakdown, how much more info do you need as a consumer to decide what to buy?

Yes. Both articles I posted talked about the tobacco fine and the subsequent taxation.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

My family has a propensity to run fat, two of my sisters are fairly large, my dad battled with weight for years. I've spent years figuring out what works for me and what I can and can't eat, and just how much exercise I need, for a good healthy balance. //

Good for you, how your sisters and dad doing in this battle?? They as skinny as you now?? Do you care if they struggle and if part of that is societies/corporations fault?


My sister lost the battle at 45, died as an absolute result of being overweight and a bad diet starting at childhood. Unlike me(and you) she did not get into sport, and was never able to break the cycle permanently like I was able to.

And how were those programs funded before? And was funding from those sources reduced when the new tax revenue came in?

My father passed away last year, ironically from how he learned to combat the weight and health issues (he got into triathlons and was fit, but also had some really bad bike crashes. He died in his sleep, doctors said they believed it was likely trauma caused by all his crashes and pushing himself too hard). I was so, so proud of how he turned things around in his 50's but he was as stubborn as a mule and never saw a challenge he didn't think he could master...two Ironman races, half a dozen half IM's, some marathons, dozens of smaller races, and some really bad crashses and injuries in a five year period. It fucking sucked, he was 60...sometimes sport isn't the answer either.

My sisters are still battling. They know they're overweight and bounce up and down. One of them has a soon-to-be 2 year old, she dropped weight before giving birth but the past year has been tough, but she recognizes it and is working on it. The other is just up and down, she still smokes, she's just not a very happy person unfortunately. I very much care that they struggle, I wish there were a simple answer but unfortunately so much of it is not giving into a sedentary life and learning how to eat fairly clean. I've talked to both of them but don't push, they know I went through my own issues and figured it out so they bounce things off me from time to time.

Don't moralize like you know the answer. This all sucks and I hate seeing my sisters gaining weight and looking miserable, I wish there were a magic wand but it's not society, it's not corporations, it's personal choices and they know it.

Don't moralize like you know the answer. This all sucks and I hate seeing my sisters gaining weight and looking miserable, I wish there were a magic wand but it's not society, it's not corporations, it's personal choices and they know it.




And you don't ascribe to me things I have not said or implied. There is no magic bullet here and all we can do is try and make things better for the present and future generations. Our families(sorry about your father and sisters battles) are the consequences of not doing anything and actually letting corporations push this stuff onto us for decades. I mean look how long it has taken to reduce smoking, 50+ years later it is still a battle for many. In many ways this will be harder to combat, but the pushback I see here is just about the same as it was with smoking, and then smoking in restaurants, and on airplanes, or at work. Always push back when there is change and a big lobby that is financially invested in no change. We are at the beginning of this battle, it is going to be a long one(generations). I choose to be part of the beginning of this mindset change and be active in doing so. Both my parents died overweight and unhealthy and my sister died way too young in what should have been the prime of life 100% due to her weight. Like you I have seen so many diets come and go with only a few of us lucky ones that win the battle, it is not just about will power..

Wait, are you talking about a MINDSET change, or a change-habits-through-taxation type thing?

I'm all for a mindset change, I think it takes education and breaking a cycle that's multi-generational in many cases. That's local, families, communities, person-to-person. How do you support and motivate and education someone as a governemnt entity? No, people KNOW the fast food is shit for them, they KNOW the soft drinks are loaded with sugar. They still do it.

So what, you want to tax sugars and fast food and use that money for education? That's noble, but to me the government needs to get OUT of 'health' before they try to fix shit they've already broken.

The food pyramid was an absolute joke and is one of the biggest causes of this epidemic. The corn subsidies are another massive cause. How about the government stop with that, to begin with, then maybe we can talk about education. I'm not super keen on government 'education' given that bullshit food pyramid they foisted on people for forty years.

Tanning salons have been passing along a new tax that arrived via the Obamacare. I think it’s about 3$ per visit.

The irony to this tax is that this:

Corn is so heavily subsidized by the feds that there has been a great surplus of the stuff for decades.

Scientists & Entreprenures figured out how to use the surplus....turn it into sugar!!

Sugar is now abundant and cheap. Thanks in large part to tax subsidies.

So we get cheap and abundant amounts of soda (and other unwholesome shit).

Now that we are all hooked on it, we have to pay a tax again.

If the government stayed out of private enterprise, we might not be in this predicament in the first place. What we seem to do is give power to bureaucrats that think they are helping us (no food shortages) but the unintended consequences create a new problem.