Explain to me why this is discriminatory

[Fishindude77]

I'd be all for tightening up on what can be bought on SNAP card / food stamps. Don't let them buy soda pop, candy, ice cream, frozen pizza, TV dinners, sugar filled cereals, etc. and restrict purchases to staples. Could also make recipients go through some mandatory educational training on cooking, food and nutrition in order to be eligible to receive these benefits.

This is the only country in the world where the poor are obese.

[disneysteve]

This is the only country in the world where the poor are obese.

Sad but true. Historically, obesity was a disease of the rich - overindulgence and all. Today, in the US at least, obesity has become a disease of the poor due to easy access to cheap crappy food. There are also societal factors involving access to food.

As I've said, I work in one of the poorest cities in the nation. Many of my patients don't have cars. Even though there are excellent and affordable supermarkets within 5-10 miles, they have no way to get there. They're stuck buying their "groceries" at the corner store where there is no fresh produce and little more than convenience food items. There is not an actual supermarket within the city limits as far as I know. So they subsist on junk food. It's sad that this country can't do better than that.

[ua_guy]

I don't really think it's discriminatory, but I also don't agree with taxing food.

[Nika]

I don't really think it's discriminatory, but I also don't agree with taxing food.

"Food product" is different from "food".
If it contains no nutrition, I would not classify it as food. Soda is no more of a "food" than alcohol is.

[FLA]

I disagree that it should be up to them. The motivation for us as a society offering these SNAP benefits, is to ensure proper nutrition for those who cannot afford it, because we as a society decided we do not want to see starvation and poor health resulting from it. So if a product contains no nutrition or poor nutrition, I see no reason for taxpayers to subsidize it (which is what happens when individual buys it with assistance money).

I am not up to having this discussion again, so we will have to agree to disagree. I shouldn't have bothered posting it, but it's what I believe. And what Steve said is so true here, there are no grocery stores anywhere near the ghetto. It's a slippery slope to the whole argument about limiting poor women's right to reproduce if they use government assistance.

[rennigade]

It's a slippery slope to the whole argument about limiting poor women's right to reproduce if they use government assistance.

With that logic if a poor person who cant even afford to take care of themselves yet chooses to have a child...shouldnt those who choose to have no kids and can easily take care of themselves without government assistance...shouldnt they somehow be rewarded? It only makes sense.

poor with or without kids = free stuff

wealthy with or without kids = pay the poor people

Not much incentive to no longer be poor

I dont think people should starve but I also do not think those who are successful should be responsible for the less privileged either. How does it get solved? It doesnt.

[FLA]

With that logic if a poor person who cant even afford to take care of themselves yet chooses to have a child...shouldnt those who choose to have no kids and can easily take care of themselves without government assistance...shouldnt they somehow be rewarded? It only makes sense.

poor with or without kids = free stuff

wealthy with or without kids = pay the poor people

Not much incentive to no longer be poor

I dont think people should starve but I also do not think those who are successful should be responsible for the less privileged either. How does it get solved? It doesnt.

having spent 11 years caring for the poor living in the ghetto and seeing just how completely sh**ty their lives really are even on benefits, I will never turn my back on a poor person, judge them or vote to limit their benefits even further. Getting welfare has a lot of stipulations, at least in NY, same with SNAP. SNAP has a 1-3% fraud rate which is pretty impressive. And welfare fraud has been greatly exaggerated. What is that line Jesus said, "what you do unto the least of my brothers, that you do unto me," something like that. Sorry, I believe in giving a helping hand. Don't forget a lot of Welfare programs were supposed to be Welfare to Work programs that never materialized or funded, programs that would teach a poor person a trade, provide reasonable day care, have child care classes, etc. That could break the circle of poverty but we cheaped out and just used the phrase to make ourselves feel better about cutting welfare. Try getting out of the cycle of immense poverty if you are born into it.

I'm out

[pflyers85]

I'd be all for tightening up on what can be bought on SNAP card / food stamps. Don't let them buy soda pop, candy, ice cream, frozen pizza, TV dinners, sugar filled cereals, etc. and restrict purchases to staples. Could also make recipients go through some mandatory educational training on cooking, food and nutrition in order to be eligible to receive these benefits.

This is the only country in the world where the poor are obese.

It's not a bad idea in theory but in practice I don't see it working out. I think in the end most are going to eat what they want to eat. Secondly if you cut off benefits for failure to attend this additional training you are likely going to see a spike in crime which will cost taxpayers in both the law enforcement and criminal justice budgets.

It's sort of similar to these states that have laws that strip welfare benefits from those who test positive for illegal drugs. Sounds like a no brainer law in theory but in practice its heavily flawed. Statistically those on welfare do not use illegal drugs at a significantly higher rate than those not on welfare. Very few have actually tested positive, two states even had 0 positive tests so they ended up spending more money in an attempt to save taxpayers. Personally I don't like the idea of welfare recipients getting taxpayer money for needs while they take the money they earn and blow it on drugs but at the end of the day I cannot support laws that are ineffective, grow the government, and cost taxpayers more money. Supporting these kinds of laws are the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[disneysteve]

Poorer families are actually spending more on sodas and a tax like this would not likely change their consumption pattern but only induce an extra financial burden

Either that or they could stop buying so much soda.

The tax wouldn't impose a financial burden since anybody could easily choose not to pay it. How is a totally voluntary tax a burden on anyone?

[Fishindude77]

Adding more taxes is ridiculous.
There are plenty of folks that enjoy an occasional soda and drink it in moderation, causing no harmful medical issues. Why should they be overcharged?

And you know what happens to money once the government gets hold of it via taxes. About 10% goes towards the issue and the other 90% is squandered on stuff it wasn't intended for or unneeded administrative overhead.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Either that or they could stop buying so much soda.

The tax wouldn't impose a financial burden since anybody could easily choose not to pay it. How is a totally voluntary tax a burden on anyone?

I agree with this. When I said it would be regressive, I meant mathematically speaking. I did not mean that it would be ethically regressive.

I have a funny for ya, Dr Disney. Some years ago I saw my doctor two months apart. During those two months I lost 11 pounds. He asked me, "Did you drink a lot of soda?" I explained that, yes, it really had helped me transition away from too frequent eating. I had used diet soda during those two months to wean myself off of horrible levels of snacking. It did not even occur to me that he was asking if I had previously drunk a lot of soda but gave it up! It was just the opposite.

[disneysteve]

I have a funny for ya, Dr Disney. Some years ago I saw my doctor two months apart. During those two months I lost 11 pounds. He asked me, "Did you drink a lot of soda?" I explained that, yes, it really had helped me transition away from too frequent eating. I had used diet soda during those two months to wean myself off of horrible levels of snacking. It did not even occur to me that he was asking if I had previously drunk a lot of soda but gave it up! It was just the opposite.

So you used diet soda to actually help your diet. As long as it's used in moderation, I have no problem with that. Yes, there are questions about the artificial sweeteners but pretty much everything is bad for you if you overdo it.

If drinking a glass of Diet Coke kept you from eating a bag of M&Ms, I'm okay with that.

And under this tax proposal, the price of diet soda wouldn't be affected.

[Nutria]

I don't understand why one type of consumption needs to be taxed at a different rate than others?

Social engineering. We do it with tobacco and alcohol to curb consumption, too.

[JoeP]

Social engineering. We do it with tobacco and alcohol to curb consumption, too.

I would argue that curbing consumption is simply window dressing for the real goal here, which is to extract the maximum amount of money from products and services that are considered vices at the time.

NYS has had a carbonated beverage refund law since 1982, which was touted as a great way to keep bottles and cans out of landfills. It has expanded the law to include non-carbonated bottles, like spring water. I'm all in favor or keeping recyclables out of landfills, but it is important to acknowledge that there is a lot of money involved in the unclaimed deposits as well as businesses that recycle returned containers.

[Nutria]

I would argue that curbing consumption is simply window dressing for the real goal here, which is to extract the maximum amount of money from products and services that are considered vices at the time.

I know that sin taxes on alcohol haven't worked to curb consumption, but they've been part of an effective strategy on curbing smoking.