Kansas preparing to tax sugar in pop

[RoyalShock]

Maybe we should just tax stupidity and make our representatives fork over tons of money.

I'm not stupid, so that's okay by me.

You have to wonder why people are so stupid with all the propaganda and rhetoric they produce and consume every day. Maybe that will smarten them up, but I doubt it.

American nanny-state advocates produce 20 IQ points of mind-polluting propaganda and rhetoric a day when they should only be producing 0. Their sheep shouldn't be consuming any.

[ISASO]

Don't we know by now that cutting taxes unleashes increased tax revenue?

When has a country ever taxed itself into prosperity?

[engrshock]

Don't we know by now that cutting taxes unleashes increased tax revenue?

When has a country ever taxed itself into prosperity?

Do you have any proof of this? If the taxes were zero would the tax revenue be infinite?

[ISASO]

1. Michigan

2. California

3. New Jersey

4. 'Nuff said.

[Ixiah]

IMHO the only taxes that should be levied on a particular product or service is when there are specific costs directly associated with it the state has to pay.

For example an automobile is not very useful unless there is roads, bridges, etc.

Tobacco I have no problem with an extra tax so long as it is used soley for treatment of smokers and their associated illnesses (i.e. emphysema). I absolutely can't stand taxing one group just to pay for a pet project (such as Obama increasing tobacco taxes to expand CHIP).

As for sugar and obesity - I'm sure that soft drinks do contribute some to the problem. But so does doughnuts, cakes, cookies, and our sedentary lifestyle. Just picking on one thing is silly.

[ABC]

Don't we know by now that cutting taxes unleashes increased tax revenue?

When has a country ever taxed itself into prosperity?

Do you have any proof of this? If the taxes were zero would the tax revenue be infinite?

Watch "Bueler's Day Off" and listen to the Laffer Curve section.

There's a curve Einstein. And we are nowhere near the zero part of it.

[ABC]

I don't drink pop, so that's okay by me.

1979, please post a list of everything you eat and drink everyday. Do you exercise, and how much each week? Do you have a high stress job? What is your height? What is your weight? What is you blood pressure? What is your sitting pulse? Do you have a good marriage? Have you ever been in jail? What is your credit score? What are your kids credit scores? Do you drink filtered water?

[1979Shocker]

I don't drink pop, so that's okay by me.

1979, please post a list of everything you eat and drink everyday. Do you exercise, and how much each week? Do you have a high stress job? What is your height? What is your weight? What is you blood pressure? What is your sitting pulse? Do you have a good marriage? Have you ever been in jail? What is your credit score? What are your kids credit scores? Do you drink filtered water?

Okay, if you really need to know, here are some things to get you started.

• water (filtered out of my faucet)
• fat-free milk
• whole grain foods
• whole grain cereals (no sugar in my cereal)
• fruits
• vegetables
• little or no snacking between meals
• average weight and height (weight is probably 10-15% more than it was in college)
• average blood pressure (usually around 120/80 or so)
• pulse rate around 60
• usually exercise 5 days a week

Is that enough for you? If not, I'm sure I could give you some more information for your research.

Oh, and it's not like I won't drink pop. I won't buy it to drink it. If I go over to a friend or family's house and they happen to have some pop, I might drink some, but normally I'll just drink water.

[ABC]

Fruit has a lot of sugar. A LOT. Major contributor to diabetes. Should be subject to the sugar tax.

Bread, whole grain or not, also contributes to diabetes.

I need a signed affidavit from your doc with height, weight, etc.

Lactic acid causes lots of diseases (low fat or not)

Good try though.

Looks like you need to contribute more to the nanny state.

[SB Shock]

usually exercise 5 days a week

Definitely need to be taxed. You are either wearing out the sidewalks with your clomping or wearing out the roads driving to the gym.

[1979Shocker]

usually exercise 5 days a week

Definitely need to be taxed. You are either wearing out the sidewalks with your clomping or wearing out the roads driving to the gym.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y2XLIitX8o

[ISASO]

And that, friends, is the insanity we will witness with government-run healthcare. Anything and everything can be twisted into something evil. Evil that justifies a new tax. It never stops, once it starts.

[Maggie]

I think all this raises an interesting question: Is there a distinction in principle between "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol, which most people do tend to support, and taxes on sugar or say fat consumption? In all of these cases there are negative-externalities and public-health arguments in favor of taxation. Oh, there could be distinctions based on the addictiveness of the product and the harm of the first unit of consumption. There could also, of course, be distinctions in the magnitude of the public-health and other consequences. I suspect that there isn't a fully satisfying distinction. :noidea: But then, I'm not a huge fan of sin taxes to begin with.

As an aside, and this is a little off topic - ABC mentioned the Laffer Curve, which says, in clear terms: Tax something more, get less of it; tax something less, get more of it. The so-called sin taxes on alcohol, beer, and tobacco (or in this case the suggested tax on sugar) suggest that liberal lawmakers just might understand the behavioral basics of taxation. Legislatures on every level have poured taxes on these products - especially tobacco, where the liberal mantra aims to save smokers from themselves. But doesn’t this assume a behavioral change by smokers in response to the higher tax-cost of cigarettes? Doesn’t it assume that people will buy less soda (my years back East have had an influence – I just don’t say pop anymore)? I think it does and isn’t that part of the justification for these types of taxes?

My question would be: So why wouldn’t the same logic apply to taxes on say investment?

[shocklight]

Someone will have to pay more taxes as the legislature has ran out of areas to cut the budget and is still short. they do not want to raise income taxes (I do not want them to either) so they are looking at ways to raise tax money. What is odd is that they have changed the personalized tag law for cars such that they will be losing substantial income from people who have had certain tags for many many years but because someone else in the state may have had it a little sooner. I will not be renewing 3 personalized tags. At least the pop tax and other similar taxes have those buying the products paying for the taxes rather than just those making over $50000 like an income tax would.

For those who are against any taxes being raised I would suggest that they contact their legislators with specific areas for budget cuts.

I have a simple idea. How about the state only spend the amount of money they collected the prior year. If you don't have the money you can't spend it.

On another note, there is talk of school closings. Just think, if the private schools have to close because they can't afford to operate, what would that do to the public school system. It is possible. Maybe the day of the public school free education is over.

[engrshock]

Don't we know by now that cutting taxes unleashes increased tax revenue?

When has a country ever taxed itself into prosperity?

Do you have any proof of this? If the taxes were zero would the tax revenue be infinite?

Watch "Bueler's Day Off" and listen to the Laffer Curve section.

There's a curve Einstein. And we are nowhere near the zero part of it.

Yes I base all of my thought on Ferris Buelers Day Off. I have read much of the "Laffer curve" hypothesis. There are many studies out there some supporting and some not. It makes sense that there is an optimum tax point but no one seems to know what it is and the point may change with conditions.

Someone mentioned that liberals were the ones that were placing a tax on pop. However this is in Kansas where the Republicans hold sway and the Republicans are the ones favoring a tax on pop rather than some other type of tax. They are looking for ways to raise tax revenues without raising income or property taxes. Note that property taxes have been being raised for years by continuously raising valuations of property even when there are years when property values go down.

I would like someone to explain to me why the state government has control of the purse strings to the schools. Public education is not free by any means. I and most pay a considerable sum every year in property taxes for the schools. I thought this was for my district. Are there tax revenues going to school districts that are not from property taxes? Why?

Frankly I think that a large portion of the Federal and State problems are the pensions that state and federal employees keep receiving. Very few companies offer pension plans anymore. Why should government continue this practice. It is very expensive and getting more so year by year. I know someone who will be getting a retirement pension from the County (officer), the State and maybe the Federal (US Mrshall) if he can hold on healthwise and Social Security.

http://www.stateline.org/live/printable/story?contentId=15264

Kansas could issue bonds up to $500 million to pay down a portion of its unfunded pension fund liability for the Kansas Public Employee Retirement System/State and School group under a bill (HB 2014) that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) signed May 22.