I understand the tax, don't ban argument.... All you are REALLY doing is encouraging people getting around the law.
If the limit starts at 16 oz, expect to see the new size being 15.999 ounces and/or free refills. Maybe bring you a 15.999 oz coke with no ice, and ice in a seperate cup on the side. Expect to see people buying two 15.999 oz for $2.00 each instead of 1 32 oz for $3.00. More money for "big business". I don't know exactly HOW people will react, but I guarantee they will react. Is this REALLY a good use of our intellect and talents? Trying to figure out ways to game the system? And then we wonder why people generally feel comfortable cheating on their taxes or hiring illegals or getting paid "in cash" taking the cream cups from ihop for their coffee later? When you legislate people from stopping doing what they want to do, they will usually find ways to do it anyway. While it is certainly worth it to legislate against things like murder, I just don't see why we need to legislate so many things. A few extra pennies in tax could be raised and go to healthcare for vices, I agree.
Understand that I am not in favor of raising taxes in general... just that if new yorkers want to discourage unhealthy behavior, put a soda tax out there. A tax on fast food.
The odd thing for me, is why a city is taking this on? Do they (New York City) really have that much of a fiscal burden due to health issues of city residents and visitors?
Seems like it needs to be a state issue to have any real impact.
And Bloombergs' admission to just now buy two smaller drinks is laughable at best.
(06-01-2012 08:52 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote: I'm OK with taxing vices, not OK with banning them.
It's a sad day when soda is a 'vice'.
Next up Chicken wings, pizza, .....
Nope, there is a massive difference between sodas which have absolutely no nutritional value and pizza/wings. I know you want to use the slippery slope argument, but that doesn't fly.
And soda is a vice when you consider its effects on the obesity rate and the costs deferred onto our healthcare system because of it, *FAR* more than marijuana at the very least. Tax it to cover the costs of it, but I still don't agree with the banning of drink sizes except for kids meals, or meals specifically advertised towards children under the age of 12 or so. If you want to drink that much, feel free, but you'll pay into the system for it.
(06-01-2012 10:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: The odd thing for me, is why a city is taking this on? Do they (New York City) really have that much of a fiscal burden due to health issues of city residents and visitors?
Seems like it needs to be a state issue to have any real impact.
And Bloombergs' admission to just now buy two smaller drinks is laughable at best.
But people won't just buy two drinks, they'll drink the one they're given and get refills if they want, but I guarantee it'll lead to a significant decrease in the amount of soda consumed by the average person.
I've worked in the service industry for enough years to know that portion size isn't a conscious thought to the overwhelming amount of patrons. We occasionally have to switch glass sizes (from 16 to 8oz) if we're very busy on special occasions, and there is absolutely no noticeable difference between the amount of times the average person wants/needs a refill. It's literally something that they don't even think about, they have the drink and they drink it. They have the plate of food, and they eat it. You give them a 32oz medium drink (jesus christ) and they'll drink it all without realizing what the f*ck that's doing to their insulin levels.
Again, I don't like the legislation, I'd prefer to just tax sodas in a way to cover the costs, but I find it difficult to get up in arms over this too.
(06-01-2012 08:52 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote: I'm OK with taxing vices, not OK with banning them.
It's a sad day when soda is a 'vice'.
Next up Chicken wings, pizza, .....
Nope, there is a massive difference between sodas which have absolutely no nutritional value and pizza/wings. I know you want to use the slippery slope argument, but that doesn't fly.
And soda is a vice when you consider its effects on the obesity rate and the costs deferred onto our healthcare system because of it, *FAR* more than marijuana at the very least. Tax it to cover the costs of it, but I still don't agree with the banning of drink sizes except for kids meals, or meals specifically advertised towards children under the age of 12 or so. If you want to drink that much, feel free, but you'll pay into the system for it.
So you go to Costco and buy those cases of 32 cans of Pepsi for $7.89. Do they get taxed on the assumption that one person will be drinking them maybe faster than they should? How about meat? Do you tax meat because it has cholesterol and fat?
(06-01-2012 10:10 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: I understand the tax, don't ban argument.... All you are REALLY doing is encouraging people getting around the law.
If the limit starts at 16 oz, expect to see the new size being 15.999 ounces and/or free refills. Maybe bring you a 15.999 oz coke with no ice, and ice in a seperate cup on the side. Expect to see people buying two 15.999 oz for $2.00 each instead of 1 32 oz for $3.00. More money for "big business". I don't know exactly HOW people will react, but I guarantee they will react. Is this REALLY a good use of our intellect and talents? Trying to figure out ways to game the system?
Put a little vitamin B12 in Dr. Pepper and start calling it a nutritional supplement. Problem solved!
(06-01-2012 10:10 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: I understand the tax, don't ban argument.... All you are REALLY doing is encouraging people getting around the law.
If the limit starts at 16 oz, expect to see the new size being 15.999 ounces and/or free refills. Maybe bring you a 15.999 oz coke with no ice, and ice in a seperate cup on the side. Expect to see people buying two 15.999 oz for $2.00 each instead of 1 32 oz for $3.00. More money for "big business". I don't know exactly HOW people will react, but I guarantee they will react. Is this REALLY a good use of our intellect and talents? Trying to figure out ways to game the system?
Put a little vitamin B12 in Dr. Pepper and start calling it a nutritional supplement. Problem solved!
(06-01-2012 08:52 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote: I'm OK with taxing vices, not OK with banning them.
It's a sad day when soda is a 'vice'.
Next up Chicken wings, pizza, .....
Nope, there is a massive difference between sodas which have absolutely no nutritional value and pizza/wings. I know you want to use the slippery slope argument, but that doesn't fly.
Of course it's a slippery slope! You use a poorly defined phrase like "nutritional value" and everybody with a dog in the hunt starts trying to interpret it. Wings and pizza probably take a little longer, but what about donuts, candy bars? It's easy to see how they'd be next on the list.
But even if I buy at some point that there is a societal benefit in the form of the health care system, I'd want an answer to RWT's question about NYC. How does the city stand to benefit?
(06-01-2012 11:03 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: How does the city stand to benefit?
It's step one in cleansing America of the fatties.
All things equal, I hire fit people over obese. If you obviously can't maintain a basic healthy lifestyle, I'm less likely to trust you to handle anything that I need done.
(06-01-2012 11:03 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: How does the city stand to benefit?
It's step one in cleansing America of the fatties.
All things equal, I hire fit people over obese. If you obviously can't maintain a basic healthy lifestyle, I'm less likely to trust you to handle anything that I need done.
(06-01-2012 11:03 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote: How does the city stand to benefit?
It's step one in cleansing America of the fatties.
All things equal, I hire fit people over obese. If you obviously can't maintain a basic healthy lifestyle, I'm less likely to trust you to handle anything that I need done.
![[Image: 3pj11g.jpg]](http://i.qkme.me/3pj11g.jpg)
