This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.I appreciatethe concern which is been rose. The things need tobe sorted out because it is about the individual but it can be witheveryone.The above thought is smart and doesn’t require any further addition.It’s perfect thought from my side. A verysmart and diplomatic answer. It’s really appreciable and general.

=====================

Tax Reserves

An average soda, or beer, for that matter, has 150 calories per can. One can a day, 7 days a week, = 1050 calories. A stick of butter is 875 calories. Do this once a week, and you have 54,600 calories per year. (/3500 per lb of butter)= 15.6 lbs pure fat gain per year. Do this 10 years, and you're 156 lbs overweight, less the calorie burn for dragging yourself around.

(and your liver turns alcohol and sugar into cholesterol)

Get it?

Do it. Obesity, like smoking and pollution, is a negative externality that will hit us in our wallets one way or another.

You are on to something here... You should check out inGREEDientsMovie.com

just pointing out that the center for science in the public interest tend to use a ton of junk science in their lobbying activities. Anything they opine you can pretty much be instantly dismissed, because it will have no good research to back it up.

That being said, a $0.03 tax that would generate $24 bil for healthcare seems like a pretty decent idea. Though I really disagree on government mandated control on health and personal issues. Jacobson claims that Soda is one of the most harmful products in the foodchain? more harmful than KFC? more harmful than Fugu? What next, will I have to pay $50 for a pint of ben and jerry's because of it's exorbitant fat content by volume? Will avocado's become contraband available only at "health clinics" in californiab ecause they naturally contain fat and are misleading as a vegetable (and can kill cats)?

Anyways, if you do a little research on Jacobson and The center for science in the public interest, I think you'll be able to draw your own conclusions as to their credibility, and to any governing body's wisdom in calling them to testify as experts.

Instead of finding things to tax consumers on, perhaps the government should cutoff medical and welfare to the individuals who don't even pay taxes. I am not saying retiree's, I'm saying foodstamps, WIC and medical care for individuals not seeking work. If families can't afford childcare then stop having so many kids. It's so irritating to see others get a free ride!!

All I wanted was a pepsi, and she wouldn't give it to me!

All I wanted was a pepsi, and she wouldn't give t to me!

Not that I would've voted for McCain, but this is exactly why Obama is my worst nightmare. Will he veto this? Doubtful.

Hey, Barry, how about we tax those smokes of yours 200%?

Pigouvian taxes do not work, and more importantly this is an assault on self-responsibility. I just drank a Barq's root beer at lunch today. I rarely drink them because I know they're bad, but fuck it...I really wanted a soda today.

The answer is always tax tax tax, and never cut cut cut.

Do it. It's the job of the government to protect the people where they can't protect themselves, or by inference, where they're too stupid to protect themselves. We don't drink pop in our house, so it doesn't hurt me. I see people offering it up to their kids in strollers; F**k 'em, charge them more money.

Do it. It's the job of the government to protect the people where they can't protect themselves, or by inference, where they're too stupid to protect themselves.

What article in the Constitution says anything to this effect?

And work to make healthier food more enticing and accessible (financially, socially, etc.). If all you're doing is f*cking people (as fun as that may sound) but not opening up any other avenues to allow people to easily make better choices, you're not actually making anything better.

@Nyctini11 I agree with you, but keep in mind that a) Fast food joints make most of their profit off of sodas and other sugary drinks; and b) The government is already trying to make inroads into regulating the fast food industry in other ways. As an example, look at all those food calorie postings they have to display now. Don't think that hasn't had an effect on the public's understanding of just how awful those foods can be. I mean...the corn lobby has started putting ads on TV saying "corn syrup is actually not bad for you, despite what the rumors say" (see http://tinyurl.com/554448)! And Pepsi has started offering a new version of their main cola that features "real sugar" instead of what they give you at fast food joints, which is corn syrup.

This idea will go away after the beverage industry makes some "donations" to various members of congress.

The Republicans have already started to rebel: they are eating more sugary and fatty crap and they are getting bigger and fatter than ever before. Soon, Walmarts will have to widen their aisles even more...

I'm all for this. But instead of calling it a "Soda Tax" I want them to rename it the "fat gross whiny people tax whom society hates" tax.

Leave it up to Babyhitler to keep it subtle.

jacobson, do what you wish with sugary drinks but don't you dare mess with my booze, sister-boy!

my thoughts exactly! haha

I don't drink soda and I think universal health care is a wonderful thing (I was born and raised in Canada) but I think it's a bad idea for the gov't to create a soda tax to help pay for universal health care. It's like taxing comic books or video games to pay for public education. I think universal health care and public education are both greatly beneficial to society. However, taxing unhealthy foods to pay for healthcare is a little too nanny state for my taste.