(01-13-2017 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:01 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  No one is going to pay double for soda. Wasn't that the point of the tax in the first place? Not sure why the Mayor is upset.

If they wanted to ban soda then just do it... Using taxes to engineer human behavior is a very dangerous thing.

But if they just ban soda, they won't get any tax money. This way, they get a few dollars before fast food joints get smart and start selling tea.

If "nobody is going to buy it" they won't get money and spent more passing the law and defending it in court than they ever will get from the "nobody"

(01-13-2017 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  No one is going to pay double for soda. Wasn't that the point of the tax in the first place? Not sure why the Mayor is upset.

Obviously because he's an idiot.

(01-12-2017 09:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  If I was a Democrat politician? I would repeal taxes on sodas and fast food restaurants. The poor don't eat or drink the stuff every day. It is like once a month and nothing else.

That's an invigorating fantasy, but a fantasy none-the-less.

(01-12-2017 09:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  If I was a Democrat politician? I would repeal taxes on sodas and fast food restaurants. The poor don't eat or drink the stuff every day.

lol, I bet they don't drink alcohol either. This is comedy gold!

(01-13-2017 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:01 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  No one is going to pay double for soda. Wasn't that the point of the tax in the first place? Not sure why the Mayor is upset.

If they wanted to ban soda then just do it... Using taxes to engineer human behavior is a very dangerous thing.

But if they just ban soda, they won't get any tax money. This way, they get a few dollars before fast food joints get smart and start selling tea.

Not everyone likes tea, so your idea is anything but smart. Also, making someone buy something they don't want, while it gets you all warm and fuzzy, isn't tenable for a businesses bottom line.

(01-13-2017 12:13 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:01 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  No one is going to pay double for soda. Wasn't that the point of the tax in the first place? Not sure why the Mayor is upset.

If they wanted to ban soda then just do it... Using taxes to engineer human behavior is a very dangerous thing.

But if they just ban soda, they won't get any tax money. This way, they get a few dollars before fast food joints get smart and start selling tea.

Not everyone likes tea, so your idea is anything but smart. Also, making someone buy something they don't want, while it gets you all warm and fuzzy, isn't tenable for a businesses bottom line.

Who is making someone buy something they don't want?

Nowhere in that article did I see anything of the sort.

(01-13-2017 12:41 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 11:50 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 11:26 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 09:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  If I was a Democrat politician? I would repeal taxes on sodas and fast food restaurants. The poor don't eat or drink the stuff every day. It is like once a month and nothing else. I would also require PE and recess from pre-school to 12th grade.

You clearly need to get out more. because the reality is quite the opposite of...whatever it is you're trying to describe.

Yeah, he's obviously never been behind someone using an EBT card in the grocery line. The processed crap is cheap and it's what poor folks eat. You can get 2 whooper combos at BK for like $10.

The irony is that you can get a much better bang for your buck at an EDLP grocery store with some basic proteins and vegetables. You're not going to eat like a king with $10, but you can stretch it pretty far if you know how to cook a bit and have the time to do so.

Alas, the poor often need to work long hours to pay the bills, necessitating quick and convenient meals at the expense of nutrition. Plus you have the problem of food deserts where it's pretty difficult for households living in poverty to find food anywhere but the corner 7-Eleven with a produce section of nothing but cheap apples. The result is 'first-world starvation,' a system where the poor don't literally starve like Soviet peasants but are condemned to a life of poor health and often pass it down to their children. It's not an easy problem to solve any way you slice it, no pun intended.

True, but you also need to have pots and pans and a stove and power and utensils and spices (at least salt and pepper)... condiments... and of course, if you buy inexpensive pots and equipment, they wear out quickly... There is a reason why some pots are 9.99 and others are 29.99 or even 299.99. Not always good reasons, but often.

So a poor person often has to spend a few hundred dollars just to get started

OR they spend 59.99 on a cheap microwave and cheap (low quality) frozen chicken nuggets and a bottle of BBQ sauce. At least they can buy microwave steamable veggies. Still not as good as fresh, but better than highly processed ones.

(01-13-2017 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:01 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  No one is going to pay double for soda. Wasn't that the point of the tax in the first place? Not sure why the Mayor is upset.

If they wanted to ban soda then just do it... Using taxes to engineer human behavior is a very dangerous thing.

But if they just ban soda, they won't get any tax money. This way, they get a few dollars before fast food joints get smart and start selling tea.

Sadly few Democrats understand this concept. It mirrors how the wealthy respond to 'income taxes'.

I think he's upset because like many leftists I've spoken to, they think that companies work on some massive margins and they will just 'eat' these costs. We all understand that restaurants etc often barely break even on many items and then cover all of their expenses on things like $2.00 sodas... but SOME people simply look at that and say, that's $1.50 (or whatever) in egregious profit... ignoring that they likely lose $1 on your burger.

SOme people... many in fact, just aren't very smart when it comes to running a business. It's PART of why Democratic policies to tax the rich so often work to their advantage and why republican ideas like lowering rates to increase 'sales' and this increase the amount of tax revenue, despite lowering the tax rate are so easily argued against to the average business un-savvy voter.

It's not about 'smart'. Many of my docs don't understand it... and lots of people who dropped out of HS do.

(01-13-2017 12:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:13 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:01 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  No one is going to pay double for soda. Wasn't that the point of the tax in the first place? Not sure why the Mayor is upset.

If they wanted to ban soda then just do it... Using taxes to engineer human behavior is a very dangerous thing.

But if they just ban soda, they won't get any tax money. This way, they get a few dollars before fast food joints get smart and start selling tea.

Not everyone likes tea, so your idea is anything but smart. Also, making someone buy something they don't want, while it gets you all warm and fuzzy, isn't tenable for a businesses bottom line.

Who is making someone buy something they don't want?

Nowhere in that article did I see anything of the sort.

The fast food joints. If they don't want tea (or any other non-soda beverage), then you're forcing them to buy something they don't want. That is asking for people to stop buying the product they (ff joints) are selling. Which I presume is what you and other "non-partisans" want.

(01-13-2017 12:38 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:13 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:01 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  If they wanted to ban soda then just do it... Using taxes to engineer human behavior is a very dangerous thing.

But if they just ban soda, they won't get any tax money. This way, they get a few dollars before fast food joints get smart and start selling tea.

Not everyone likes tea, so your idea is anything but smart. Also, making someone buy something they don't want, while it gets you all warm and fuzzy, isn't tenable for a businesses bottom line.

Who is making someone buy something they don't want?

Nowhere in that article did I see anything of the sort.

The fast food joints. If they don't want tea (or any other non-soda beverage), then you're forcing them to buy something they don't want. That is asking for people to stop buying the product they (ff joints) are selling. Which I presume is what you and other "non-partisans" want.

Sometimes you just have to spell it out. "Reading between the lines" is a foreign concept to many.

The left's solution to sugary drinks is to have poor minorities drink tea? Man, leftists talk trash about white people, but they treat black people like disposable trash.

(01-13-2017 12:45 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:38 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:13 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  But if they just ban soda, they won't get any tax money. This way, they get a few dollars before fast food joints get smart and start selling tea.

Not everyone likes tea, so your idea is anything but smart. Also, making someone buy something they don't want, while it gets you all warm and fuzzy, isn't tenable for a businesses bottom line.

Who is making someone buy something they don't want?

Nowhere in that article did I see anything of the sort.

The fast food joints. If they don't want tea (or any other non-soda beverage), then you're forcing them to buy something they don't want. That is asking for people to stop buying the product they (ff joints) are selling. Which I presume is what you and other "non-partisans" want.

Sometimes you just have to spell it out. "Reading between the lines" is a foreign concept to many.

Fit has no problem reading between the lines when it benefits him or the leftist cause. He's being willfully ignorant on this topic because it doesn't.

I have a question for the mayor. WTF did you expect to happen, you stupid SOB?

(01-13-2017 12:38 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Who is making someone buy something they don't want?

Nowhere in that article did I see anything of the sort.

The fast food joints. If they don't want tea (or any other non-soda beverage), then you're forcing them to buy something they don't want. That is asking for people to stop buying the product they (ff joints) are selling. Which I presume is what you and other "non-partisans" want.

I hope I quoted these correctly....

That's only true if you want the 'meal'. Nobody is forcing you to do so. Often they encourage you to do so by pricing it advantageously... but it is rarely 'cheaper' to buy the meal with a drink than it is to buy the meal alone... and nobody is stopping you from throwing out or giving away the things you don't want.

If you mean by pricing soda at $2 and tea at $1, that still isn't forcing them. Encouraging maybe... but not forcing.

(01-13-2017 01:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have a question for the mayor. WTF did you expect to happen, you stupid SOB?

I can guarantee you he didn't even think that far ahead.

(01-13-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We all understand that restaurants etc often barely break even on many items and then cover all of their expenses on things like $2.00 sodas... but SOME people simply look at that and say, that's $1.50 (or whatever) in egregious profit... ignoring that they likely lose $1 on your burger.

The point is to reduce the consumption of sugar drinks, so as to massively save in health care costs associated with metabolic disease.

And that is correct.

(01-13-2017 01:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We all understand that restaurants etc often barely break even on many items and then cover all of their expenses on things like $2.00 sodas... but SOME people simply look at that and say, that's $1.50 (or whatever) in egregious profit... ignoring that they likely lose $1 on your burger.

The point is to reduce the consumption of sugar drinks, so as to massively save in health care costs associated with metabolic disease.

And that is correct.

Then make it illegal and be done with it...

I'd rather just force big sugar/big soda to pay for the costs directly, but that isn't politically possible. They buy off too many politicians.

(01-13-2017 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'd rather just force big sugar/big soda to pay for the costs directly, but that isn't politically possible. They buy off too many politicians.

It isn't possible because you'll get the same exact thing that happened here: The increased cost of doing business because of government regulation being passed on to the consumer through a price increase to recoup the loss.

(01-13-2017 01:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:38 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Who is making someone buy something they don't want?

Nowhere in that article did I see anything of the sort.

The fast food joints. If they don't want tea (or any other non-soda beverage), then you're forcing them to buy something they don't want. That is asking for people to stop buying the product they (ff joints) are selling. Which I presume is what you and other "non-partisans" want.

I hope I quoted these correctly....

That's only true if you want the 'meal'. Nobody is forcing you to do so. Often they encourage you to do so by pricing it advantageously... but it is rarely 'cheaper' to buy the meal with a drink than it is to buy the meal alone... and nobody is stopping you from throwing out or giving away the things you don't want.

If you mean by pricing soda at $2 and tea at $1, that still isn't forcing them. Encouraging maybe... but not forcing.

Exactly. Us poor folks rarely buy drinks unless we are going to dine in. Usually, we just by the food and go home and drink Kool aid.

(01-13-2017 01:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  increased cost of doing business because of government regulation being passed on to the consumer through a price increase

Good point, I forgot that consumers accept any price increase, for any reason, and continue right on buying the product at 100% exactly the same sales rate.


Then I woke up.