|
Opinion |
|
 |
|
Analysis and commentary on Obama's
proposed soda tax:
Pro: Soda tax isn't enough
The Advocate
First and foremost, to all the staunchly conservative blowhards out there who think President Obama is another tax-and-spend liberal, hell-bent on crippling the lower and middle-classes with more and more taxes on “simple pleasures,” do yourself a favor and shut up.
Many of you registered-righties might recall a man named of David Kim who ran last year against Troutdale’s district State Rep. Laurie Monnes-Anderson. Kim, a conservative, lost the battle for the district spot but came forth during a debate held at MHCC with a brilliant idea: tax unhealthy foods and drinks.
This is Obama’s idea on a national scale, but Kim’s was much better; why stop at just soda? Because the American people (made-up mostly of fat people), would castrate Obama if he dared try to wrap his greedy communist fingers around their Twinkies, Cheetos and Ho-Hos. So we’ll start at soda.
Last week in an op-ed piece for the Boston Globe, Susan K. Neely wrote, “A tax on juice drinks and soda would further squeeze middle-class families already struggling through a recession. The Congressional Research Service issued a report this summer showing that a beverage tax on sodas, juice drinks, teas, and flavored milk is highly regressive. Over 70 percent of the cost of this tax in its first year would be paid by those earning less than $91,297.”
Who is Susan K. Neely? The president and CEO of the American Beverage Association. This paragraph really blows me away because she did three things, all in a row: a.) made something up, b.) skewed “facts,” and c.) tried to trick the last few fifth graders that she couldn’t trick using “a” and “b.”
The myth that a tax on soda and juice would “squeeze” middle class families is a complete farce. Last I checked, soda isn’t essential to life (a friend of mine might argue Mountain Dew is, but I digress). And a three-cent tax wouldn’t put a dent into a toddler’s wallet. This crippling tax would come to an astounding . . . $10.68 a year, even if that person decided to buy a soda taxed at 3 cents every single day. Would people pay an hour’s wage every year to continue to buy soda? You’re damn right they would.
There is no argument that soda is unhealthy. But there is argument that taxes aren’t healthy. Why, people see the word “tax” and they have a panic attack. But the word could just as easily be called something else, and then people would understand. No one argues against taxes on cigarettes and liquor, but why not, as Kim says, “keep it fair”?
The Center for Science in the Public Interest at Yale University estimated a decade ago that as many as 500,000 people are dying each year due to poor diets and lack of physical activity and the cost of diet-related illnesses is over $71 billion annually. And this was four years before obesity took over as the number-one cause of death.
That same study concluded that a one-cent tax per pound of candy, chips and other snack-foods would raise at least $70 million, $54 million and $190 million, respectively, on an annual basis.
Where is the argument here? We stand to make $24 billion over the next four years that could help create funds for universal healthcare or something else. How do the American people lose?
The Advocate reserves the right to not publish comments based on their appropriateness.