Taxing sugar to pay for healthcare

[John2598]

What's the downside to taxing sugar to pay for healthcare (to cover those who don't have any)?

Sugar is a disgusting drug-like substance anyway. Put a 100% tax on it.

Don't hurt me, I'm a conservative. :rolleyes:

[jeepers]

The downside is that when it gets to the point where you not only will not be able to afford your taxes and to live, they're going to tax your donuts, too?

The downside is 'enough is enough'.

[jeepers]

Here's the funny part of this for me:


[edit (http://forums.hannity.com/w/index.php?title=Glucose&action=edit&section=10)] As an energy source

Glucose is a ubiquitous fuel in biology (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Biology). It is used as an energy source in most organisms, from bacteria to humans. Use of glucose may be by either aerobic respiration (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Aerobic_respiration), anaerobic respiration (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Anaerobic_respiration), or fermentation (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Fermentation_(biochemistry)). Carbohydrates are the human body's key source of energy, through aerobic respiration, providing approximately 3.75 kilocalories (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Kilocalorie) (16 kilojoules (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Kilojoule)) of food energy (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Food_energy) per gram (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Gram).[10] (http://forums.hannity.com/#cite_note-9) Breakdown of carbohydrates (e.g. starch) yields mono- (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Monosaccharide) and disaccharides (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Disaccharide), most of which is glucose. Through glycolysis (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Glycolysis) and later in the reactions of the citric acid cycle (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle) (TCAC), glucose is oxidized (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Oxidize) to eventually form CO2 (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Carbon_dioxide) and water (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Water), yielding energy sources, mostly in the form of ATP (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate). The insulin reaction, and other mechanisms, regulate the concentration of glucose in the blood. A high fasting blood sugar level is an indication of prediabetic and diabetic conditions.
Glucose is a primary source of energy for the brain, and hence its availability influences psychological processes. When glucose is low (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Hypoglycaemia), psychological processes requiring mental effort (e.g., self-control (http://forums.hannity.com/wiki/Self-control), effortful decision-making) are impaired.[11] (http://forums.hannity.com/#cite_note-10)[12] (http://forums.hannity.com/#cite_note-11)[13] (http://forums.hannity.com/#cite_note-12)[14] (http://forums.hannity.com/#cite_note-13)

[pattyk]

they would like to tax everything we use and it looks like it's happening

[OldBuzzard]

A tax on sugar? Sounds good to me. Let's tax it at $24.00 per pound, just like they did with RYO tobacco.

[R_not]

I know that there are a whole heck of a lot of adults that eat sugar, but what came to my mind when I heard this is that they (Democrats) are already starting to tax our kids to pay for their socialism. Yes, I know that the parents end out paying for this, but if you look at who this is really geared at - the kids - either directly or indirectly.

I will say that I agree that pure sugar should be reduced in our diets because it reacts on our bodies like a drug. The sugar companies, of course, will say otherwise. Read the book, 'Sugar Blues' and wake up!! I read that book in the 1970s and lost that book and bought another one that has a new copywrite date. It is still a very informative book to tell everyone what sugar does to the body. I don't drink sodas anymore due to the sugar (and those diet sodas with all the sugar substitutes are just as bad, if not worse!).

Anyway, the 'sin' taxes don't work. California tried that several years ago and ended out stopping it. What we need are politicians who can stop thinking that their jobs are to SPEND our money. To STOP giving it away to muslim countries who look at it as their right to our money (look up dhimmi and jizya payments), and to businesses that should just fold - and especially to companies that are not even American companies that should fold! How many know that we have given more money to foreign companies than even our own!

The Democrats are wrong for our country. But so are the RINOs (Republicans in name only), such as Schwarzenegger (who I call Schwarzenkennedy).

[snagswolf]

What's the downside to taxing sugar to pay for healthcare (to cover those who don't have any)?

Sugar is a disgusting drug like substance anyway. Put a 100% tax on it.

Don't hurt me, I'm a conservative. :rolleyes:
Well, one downside would be a self-claimed 'conservative' advocating higher taxes, just because you happen to disagree with a certain private activity. Also seems like you're advocating socialized healthcare.

There's a name for that type of person: liberal.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

What's the downside to taxing sugar to pay for healthcare (to cover those who don't have any)?

Sugar is a disgusting drug like substance anyway. Put a 100% tax on it.

Don't hurt me, I'm a conservative. :rolleyes:

What's the downside? Why should we, the American' people, pay a higher tax on anything just because the government wants to go to socialized health care? :rolleyes: Alcohol, tobacco, meat, sugar, corn, gas, milk....What's next? Air? :rolleyes:

The government would tax everything and anything so that they (the government) can take care of us? Oh yeah..that's American...Not! The government can barely function as a governing body now...what in the hell makes anyone think more taxes is the solution to anything? What about freedoms? If I want a donut..then I should be able to go buy said product without the government tracking said donut purchase..and adding a tax due to a high cholesterol reading, or high blood pressure reading...due to a socialized medicine regime. :rolleyes:

The government isn't supposed to infringe on our freedoms and choices. Plain and simple. Even if those choices are not the most healthy or most safe to extend out human life. Heck if anything they should be pushing sugar, alcohol, tobacco and red meat down our throats trying to shorten life expectancy....that would save tons right? :snooty:

Stop taxing us for every little thing in life. Soon, there will be nothing left to make or tax. utopia? yeah..welfare utopia where China is making the welfare payments! :wall:

~Mysty

[birddog1]

The only bright side I would see to a tax like this would be that at least I could avoid it to a degree, which wouldn't be possible with an across the board income tax hike.

[Finality]

The only bright side I would see to a tax like this would be that at least I could avoid it to a degree, which wouldn't be possible with an across the board income tax hike.
I could stand to avoid a little sugar ...

I'm way more in favor of consumption taxes than income taxes. Consumption taxes, as you say, can be avoided, but they're also much more visible to the consumer--who can then get mad about how much they have to pay for junk.

[CaptainPike]

I could stand to avoid a little sugar ...

I'm way more in favor of consumption taxes than income taxes. Consumption taxes, as you say, can be avoided, but they're also much more visible to the consumer--who can then get mad about how much they have to pay for junk.

Sugar exists in too many foods to totally avoid.

There is no legit reason to tax sugar.

[ValricoKate]

What's the downside to taxing sugar to pay for healthcare (to cover those who don't have any)?

Sugar is a disgusting drug like substance anyway. Put a 100% tax on it.

Don't hurt me, I'm a conservative. :rolleyes:

It would probably be more effective if they taxed hfcs.
Not much out there with the white stuff anymore.

[Chucky]

The basic reason any tax on something to pay for something else never works is that congress just spends the new money anywhere they want - just like the old money.

Look at any state that started a lottery "to supplement education" - the money may indeed go to education, but it will never supplement the old budget, that old budget money will go elsewhere while total education bucks continue to decline.

[Finality]

Sugar exists in too many foods to totally avoid.

There is no legit reason to tax sugar.
I can go over to the farmer's market and buy a whole load of food that doesn't have added sugar.

[John2598]

The downside is that when it gets to the point where you not only will not be able to afford your taxes and to live, they're going to tax your donuts, too?

The downside is 'enough is enough'.

Jeepers,

Good point and I agree. But (to play devil's advocate) I figure that a tax on sugar would hit both rich and poor equally, rather than targeting only the rich. And it would be voluntary as there is no Minimum Daily Requirement for sugar in your diet.

[sgdp]

Hrmm....why does this sound so familiar. Oh, because San Francisco already got a whooping over it, seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZXUnP_565Q&feature=related

Problem is taxing something ensures it will be around forever, so to act as if it's good for the People is disingenuous.

[John2598]

Well, one downside would be a self-claimed 'conservative' advocating higher taxes, just because you happen to disagree with a certain private activity. Also seems like you're advocating socialized healthcare.

There's a name for that type of person: liberal.

The way I see it, some form of socialized healthcare is likely whether we want it or not. Even a conservative like George Bush gave us expanded government with medicare part D. I don't happen to like it but given a choice where the money should come from I think sugar is a good fit. It's better than raising federal income taxes and/or the capital gains tax, for example.

[John2598]

I know that there are a whole heck of a lot of adults that eat sugar, but what came to my mind when I heard this is that they (Democrats) are already starting to tax our kids to pay for their socialism. Yes, I know that the parents end out paying for this, but if you look at who this is really geared at - the kids - either directly or indirectly.

I will say that I agree that pure sugar should be reduced in our diets because it reacts on our bodies like a drug. The sugar companies, of course, will say otherwise. Read the book, 'Sugar Blues' and wake up!! I read that book in the 1970s and lost that book and bought another one that has a new copywrite date. It is still a very informative book to tell everyone what sugar does to the body. I don't drink sodas anymore due to the sugar (and those diet sodas with all the sugar substitutes are just as bad, if not worse!).

Anyway, the 'sin' taxes don't work. California tried that several years ago and ended out stopping it. What we need are politicians who can stop thinking that their jobs are to SPEND our money. To STOP giving it away to muslim countries who look at it as their right to our money (look up dhimmi and jizya payments), and to businesses that should just fold - and especially to companies that are not even American companies that should fold! How many know that we have given more money to foreign companies than even our own!

The Democrats are wrong for our country. But so are the RINOs (Republicans in name only), such as Schwarzenegger (who I call Schwarzenkennedy).

I agree with everything you said, especially about sugar. I didn't read "Sugar Blues" but I read "Sugar Busters". And besides that, just about every worthwhile book on the subject of health will mention how bad refined sugar is for your health.

If this tax is aimed at kids it might be because of this fact: Average sugar consumption among teenage boys is 35 teaspoons per day. At 16 calories per teaspoon, that's 560 empty calories per day. And it's mostly from drinking soda. (Three 12 oz. cans contain 36 teaspoons of sugar.)

[John2598]

What's the downside? Why should we, the American' people, pay a higher tax on anything just because the government wants to go to socialized health care? :rolleyes: Alcohol, tobacco, meat, sugar, corn, gas, milk....What's next? Air? :rolleyes:

The government would tax everything and anything so that they (the government) can take care of us? Oh yeah..that's American...Not! The government can barely function as a governing body now...what in the hell makes anyone think more taxes is the solution to anything? What about freedoms? If I want a donut..then I should be able to go buy said product without the government tracking said donut purchase..and adding a tax due to a high cholesterol reading, or high blood pressure reading...due to a socialized medicine regime. :rolleyes:

The government isn't supposed to infringe on our freedoms and choices. Plain and simple. Even if those choices are not the most healthy or most safe to extend out human life. Heck if anything they should be pushing sugar, alcohol, tobacco and red meat down our throats trying to shorten life expectancy....that would save tons right? :snooty:

Stop taxing us for every little thing in life. Soon, there will be nothing left to make or tax. utopia? yeah..welfare utopia where China is making the welfare payments! :wall:

~Mysty

Personally, I don't use sugar, alcohol, tobacco, lottery tickets etc., so I look at these items as personal choice rather than something needed to sustain life. They're more destructive than constructive, except perhaps for the moderate use of wine.

You ask, "What's next? Air?" Yes, they're working on passing a "carbon tax" to discourage the burning of fossil fuel. Ok, I agree that's going too far. We might not need the other stuff I mentioned above but we do need affordable energy to heat our homes and power our cars.

In an ideal world, more taxes is not the solution to anything. I agree with you on that. But we don't live in an idea world. We already pay for people who can't afford healthcare. We pay taxes to support Medicaid. Medicare premiums are increasing and those with higher incomes are now being charged more. Those who are careful to maintain a healthy lifestyle pay higher and higher premiums for those who don't. Go to a hospital without insurance and you will pay more to make up for those who pay nothing. It's known as "cost-shifting". Cost-shifting is a tax too and we are already paying through the nose for it.

But we defend against taxation those items that make people sick. I'm having some dificulty coming to terms with that. :wall:

[John2598]

I could stand to avoid a little sugar ...

I'm way more in favor of consumption taxes than income taxes. Consumption taxes, as you say, can be avoided, but they're also much more visible to the consumer--who can then get mad about how much they have to pay for junk.

So here's the plan: Let everyone "get mad" about taxes (even the poor) then we conservatives step in and offer to fix it by passing the "fair tax". :clap:

[The Girl from Ipanema]

Have they started taxing the fat content in food products yet?

[birddog1]

So here's the plan: Let everyone "get mad" about taxes (even the poor) then we conservatives step in and offer to fix it by passing the "fair tax". :clap:

A "fair tax" is useless without responsible budgeting.

[sironin]

A "fair tax" is useless without responsible budgeting.

Taxation in general is useless without responsible budgeting. That being said, the Fair Tax is better than the income tax.

[Groundhog]

Tax sugar or all things sweetened by Corn Syrup?

Look in the back of any food item, and you will hardly see sugar as an ingredient.

It is bad enough our government subsidizes the corporate corn agriculture industry.

[Gray]

What's the downside to taxing sugar to pay for healthcare (to cover those who don't have any)?

Sugar is a disgusting drug-like substance anyway. Put a 100% tax on it.

Don't hurt me, I'm a conservative. :rolleyes:

All sin taxes are stupid.