Skip to comments.Rep. DeLauro: Tax Every Teaspoon of Sugar
Posted on 08/02/2014 10:11:36 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced this week the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax (SWEET Act), which aims to institute a tax of one cent per teaspoon4.2 gramsof sugar, high fructose corn syrup or caloric sweetener.
The measure (HB 5279), introduced Wednesday says, A 20-ounce bottle of soda contains about 16 teaspoons of sugars. Yet, the American Heart Association recommends that Americans consume no more than six to nine teaspoons of sugar per day.
Even though the manufacturers of the sweet drinks are targeted to pay the tax, the text of the bill itself notes that the goal is to reduce public consumption through a price increase.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
I think we need to tax Congressional legislation.
For a Democrat the only thing better than taxing “sin” is spending the money it brings in.
The states need to start putting some propositions on the ballots allowing the voters to decide if we should tax the hell out of politicians. I’d vote yes.
I’m so thrilled we have a nanny government that really cares for us.
Next they’ll want to impose a tax on each cup of tea.
Ronnie is a lot better-looking! She makes my stomach churn!
If 5 percent seems to small ( George Harrison was talking about being taxed in the upper 95 percent rate ) be thankful I don’t take it all, TAXMAN ! cause I’m the taxman.
To think that Connecticut was one of our 13 original colonies. Thank God this woman and the rest of her liberal heathen friends weren’t around in the revolutionary days.
Oh yes, that’s exactly why I vote for representatives in my government, to tell me exactly how I should live my life by way of social engineering via taxation that will persuade me to live my life as my government dictates!
does this mean no more import controls and price supports too?
The sad part is, with the advent of government controlled health care, it is only a matter of time before they will demand we live as they dictate in order to keep health care costs down.
Gee, that could NEVER happen, could it?
you can tell what libtards are really for, or against, by how they want to tax it and restrict it.
cigarettes? you bet.
ammo? oh my god yes.
look at how they go after certain things and don’t others. shove this in their faces the next time they tell you the lie they want abortion to be rare. if it were true they’d be going after abortion the same they go after the things they hate. any excuse they offer can be turned around on them.
Is she really a woman?
Frau Blücher! (horses whinny)
A spoonful of sugar makes the deficit go down,
the deficit go doooown, the deficit go down,
Yes a spoonful of sugar makes the deficit go down
in a most financial way.
(with apologies to Julie Andrews)
The worlds ugliest women seeking more attention, talk about a glutton for punishment.
Hate to say this Martin, but Ron Wood is better looking.
What if ballots had pictures of the candidates on them?
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) is living proof that some kinds of ugliness are not just skin-deep.
The sugar lobby will shred her
Rep. DeLauro. (Rep.: abbreviation of Reptile)
The Wooster Street Monster is more than happy to slap a regressive tax on the useful idiots who regularly vote for her. They know the money will just come back in the form of more entitlements.
Thus adding $10.90 to a ten pound sack of sugar. Who knows what it will do to the price of beer because malt will get it, too.
I was no fan of trans-fats and I’m glad to see them gone. Next on my list is HFCS...maybe should not be ingesting that crap either, so if she wants to tax it, FINE WITH ME. I’d like to see it gone one way or the other.
But leave sugar alone - as long as it’s real sugar there’s no harm in eating it.
LOL - You need to add Mick Jagger to your comparison.
She does proves that looks are DEFINITELY not a consideration when it comes to Democrats selecting their Reps.
I find taxing sugar, salt, and other essential commodities of a persons diet or life, unconstitutional. Maybe tax the artificial sweeteners.
How is it that the left has been able to tap into an unlimited supply of the people?!?
Can we tax ugly and stupid too? At first glance, I thought this was satire. I never met a dim who didn’t want another tax.
Better still is to tax traitorous Demonicrats for breathing. Let's hope that someday that tax is no longer used.
Just think of all the feral government DEA agents you could provide jobs for, and all the property you could steal under the asset forfeiture laws!
You forgot farts. They want to tax them too.
Does she intend to include High Fructose Corn Syrup? Inquiring minds want to know.
It was exactly this kind of thinking that sparked the original Tea Party in Boston Harbor. Wonder what the constituents of her own district think of this?
You want to increase our taxes because you're a scientific illiterate?
How conservative of you.
"We moved our base camp last night and were now positioned literally
within feet of the river. Have been sitting here watching the border
patrol patrolling in their riverboats all night and all morning..."
” You want to increase our taxes because you’re a scientific illiterate? How conservative of you.”
I want that CRAP off the market. Sugar is JUST FINE.
So giving in to the liberals’ way is the way to eliminate the alleged “crap”?
Nobody buys HFCS voluntarily, for the record; it’s an additive. If people want to vote with their feet and buy stuff that contains it, versus looking for the stuff that contains sucrose instead, then that’s the free market.
We should tax liberal idiocy, instead.
If we taxed ugly, she could pay off the national debt.
There is fructose in your sugar, shhhhhhhhh.
Seems that the comparisons with the archetypal witch go beyond the merely facetious. Why such a preponderance of female politicians with that same lack of “healthy” physical appearance among the liberals?
Feminism was created so as to give unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society. - Rush Limbaugh Undeniable Truth #24
I figured that I wouldn’t make any friends going after HFCS...but I do what I feel is right, and I actually do believe there is a place for governments to protect us. For example, I know that Houston’s smog would rival Peking’s if the EPA hadn’t cleaned up cars.
...of course there are limits and forcing California to close shop because some 2” fish wants fresh water (and thereby forcing most of California’s fresh water to drain directly to the ocean) is INSANE. But I still believe in some regulation, because BIG BUSINESS is simply incapable of regulating itself, as PROVEN by the mortgage crisis not long ago, when they JUMPING OVER EACH OTHER to loan $500,000 to people making $50k per year and never having a prayer of paying it back.
Anyway, hopefully the market will at least put an end to HFCS, even if the government won’t.
I'm trying to figure out why HFCS is bad, but the fructose in your real sugar is good.
Maybe you can explain?
If they Taxed Ugly, she would have to declare Bankruptcy.
“I’m trying to figure out why HFCS is bad, but the fructose in your real sugar is good.”
It’s the conversion of the sugar type, totally messes it up. Anyway, little old me won’t have any effect, but people are now moving away from that junk regardless.