California governor signs ban on soda tax

Quote:

---

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed into law on Thursday a measure banning cities from passing taxes on soda for more than a decade.

The measure was a last-minute compromise to stop an initiative circulated by the beverage industry that would make it more difficult to raise state and local taxes in California.

"Mayors from countless cities have called to voice their alarm and to strongly support the compromise which this bill represents," Brown wrote in a signing message.

---

The statement by Little Jerry Brown seems to be an outright lie. Jerry gave it up to corporate interests. This is exactly why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won over a 10 term congressman. People are tired of being sold out.

Another Bear said:

---

California governor signs ban on soda tax

Quote:

---

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed into law on Thursday a measure banning cities from passing taxes on soda for more than a decade.

The measure was a last-minute compromise to stop an initiative circulated by the beverage industry that would make it more difficult to raise state and local taxes in California.

"Mayors from countless cities have called to voice their alarm and to strongly support the compromise which this bill represents," Brown wrote in a signing message.

---

The statement by Little Jerry Brown seems to be an outright lie. Jerry gave it up to corporate interests. This is exactly why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won over a 10 term congressman. People are tired of being sold out.

---

I'm not sure Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, former Bernie Sanders campaigner, would be for the soda tax.

I agree with Bernie (below) that the poor bears the brunt. (Hillary is pro-soda tax, by the way.) Sure, there is a UC Berkeley study that the soda tax drives poor people to water. But I don't like the idea of a "sin tax" on food.

https://www.phillymag.com/citified/2016/04/24/bernie-sanders-soda-tax-op-ed/

It kind of reminds me of those "sounds good in theory" things like forcing people who receive government assistance to only be allowed to purchase certain food.

(Before you go, "the poor should not be drinking soda," well think of it this way: The poor shouldn't be consuming fast food, either. But when you're poor, sometimes your only "luxury" is allowing yourself once in a while to eat fast food and to consume soda.)

But what I'm most outraged about is just how steep these soda taxes are (and also the sketchiness of where they are going.)

In some cases, you're paying more than 100% in taxes. That's crazy!

Take Philadelphia's soda tax. It's 1.5 cents per ounce of regular and diet soda. (In Berkeley, it's 1 cent per ounce for regular soda.)

So for this 2 liter of diet 7 up, you're taxed $1.01. Then you have to pay sales tax on the tax plus the price of the soda.



Now say you want to buy a 12-pack of 12 ounce Bud Light, which would usually costs about $9.99. Philly's alcohol tax is 10%.



So you're paying $1.00 in taxes for 144 ounces of alcohol.

That's less than the tax on 67.6 ounces of soda.

That's ridiculous.




I wouldn't mind the soda tax if:

1) it's a percentage tax and not an ounce tax.

2) the tax applies to *ALL* products with sugar or artificial sugar.

3) It applies to coffee shops and convenience stores. You can't put sugar or sweet and low in your coffee, unless you pay a sugar tax. All sugar and sweet and low must be kept behind the counter at convenience stores and coffee shops.

Research is showing refined sugar in relatively high doses (like in the US) is bad for your heart, and of course there's the YUUGE obesity problem in the U.S. I agree a tax might not solve everything and there are issues, both practical and philosophical. But taking any soda tax off the table for a decade short circuits any city or region local control.

The question is, what did the beverage industry get and what did California citizens get out of the deal? On the surface it seems citizens got lost of control and the beverage industry got a 10 year waiver and free by. Giving that away for a decade reeks of corporate stooges, and Jerry Brown has that baggage.

I think it could be said generally that this general issue (i.e., of liberal policy makers being subservient to corporate interests - because, without the campaign donations therefrom, there wouldn't be enough liberals in legislatures to do anything) is why Trump won - because, in the perception of enough members of the 99%, there just was not enough real benefit for that democratically meaningful group to justify the status quo, and there was not enough possible pushback from the American left to make a sufficient difference (although there of course is and were substantial differences, which Trump voters will discover the longer the Republican agenda plays out - but Republicans' superior demagogic skills will continue to win the perception wars, certainly for some reasonably likely period of time..

Another Bear said:

---

Research is showing refined sugar in relatively high doses (like in the US) is bad for your heart, and of course there's the YUUGE obesity problem in the U.S. I agree a tax might not solve everything and there are issues, both practical and philosophical. But taking any soda tax off the table for a decade short circuits any city or region local control.

The question is, what did the beverage industry get and what did California citizens get out of the deal? On the surface it seems citizens got lost of control and the beverage industry got a 10 year waiver and free by. Giving that away for a decade reeks of corporate stooges, and Jerry Brown has that baggage.

---

I just hate that the tax is aimed at the poor.

I also hate that it's a massive tax. Anytime you're paying 50% or 100% or more taxes on an item is just going too far, especially since it's not tobacco.

As I said, I'd be okay with these kind of taxes if they were applied to drinks that non-poor people are more likely to drink, like beer and coffee.

I'm fine with charging $1.44 or $2.16 on a 12-pack of beer. Heck, cities could raise a lot of money doing it.

Of course they would never do it because there would be too much outrage by coffee and beer drinkers.

But soda drinkers are an easy target....

If there is a huge obesity problem, why only limit it to soda? Why not all sugary foods? Why not all food?

Interesting viewpoints

Pay people to eat leafy green vegetables.
Make certain foods free.
Tax the negative foods.
Force people on welfare and public assistance to eat vegetables and exercise.
Life habits will lead to social mobility.

Does Berkeley have an obesity problem? This is a cultural reaction to the evils of Big Soda which the culturati and food police do not approve of and even though they don't drink it neither should their African American neighbors.. just don't touch my red wine or craft beer

Even so, communities have the right to make rules for their members. The State of California and federal government have no right to stop them.

concordtom said:

---

Pay people to eat leafy green vegetables.
Make certain foods free.
Tax the negative foods.
Force people on welfare and public assistance to eat vegetables and exercise.
Life habits will lead to social mobility.

---

Hmm k
I guess but that is still ignoring too many other factors in the equation of what leads to social mobility. Way too many imo.
Have you had to live that life ? Well it's virtually impossible to speak on issues you have never experienced.

Vegetables( fresh) are not often sold anywhere close to those on public assistance.

The title of this thread is such garbage. Democrats can have a reasonable difference of opinion on this issue. I'm not sure how I feel about it, myself. And Democrats do sometimes do too much for corporate interests.

But the Republican Party exists to cater to big business and the wealthy - so let's keep some perspective about us.

okaydo said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Research is showing refined sugar in relatively high doses (like in the US) is bad for your heart, and of course there's the YUUGE obesity problem in the U.S. I agree a tax might not solve everything and there are issues, both practical and philosophical. But taking any soda tax off the table for a decade short circuits any city or region local control.

The question is, what did the beverage industry get and what did California citizens get out of the deal? On the surface it seems citizens got lost of control and the beverage industry got a 10 year waiver and free by. Giving that away for a decade reeks of corporate stooges, and Jerry Brown has that baggage.

---

I just hate that the tax is aimed at the poor.

I also hate that it's a massive tax. Anytime you're paying 50% or 100% or more taxes on an item is just going too far, especially since it's not tobacco.

As I said, I'd be okay with these kind of taxes if they were applied to drinks that non-poor people are more likely to drink, like beer and coffee.

I'm fine with charging $1.44 or $2.16 on a 12-pack of beer. Heck, cities could raise a lot of money doing it.

Of course they would never do it because there would be too much outrage by coffee and beer drinkers.

But soda drinkers are an easy target....

If there is a huge obesity problem, why only limit it to soda? Why not all sugary foods? Why not all food?

---

The tobacco industry taxes were also aimed at the poor...but it still saved some lives and reduced the costs to society. The sugar industry is just as nasty as tobacco, given how the funded all the "fat is bad" for you research that prompted heart doctors to buy into it. Well as it turns out, fat isn't so bad for you and is needed to survive....
BUT it depends on what type of fat. It turns out sugar in large quanties are bad for the heart, very bad.

As to why just soda? Because refined sugar in liquid form goes right into the blood stream, and people don't realize how much they're consuming because often it's a replacement for water. It's like mainlining sugar.

Sugar in cookies isn't much better but it has to go through digestion and while some people can eat a pound of cookies in 2 minutes, most can not. Also diet (sugar free soda) is just as bad for you.

I like soda, a lot. Got hooked on it after it became standard operating procedures to shock the work places with FREE soda and snacks...so you don't leave the office and they can squeeze another ounce of blood from you. Last May my MD told me I reached diabetic sugar levels. So I quit soda, ate properly and worked out. Lost 30 lbs. Even though I can afford the tax, when I saw it, it turned me away...like it should.