Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

San Francisco Board of Supes to put sugar tax before voters
abc7news.com ^ | Tuesday, July 22, 2014 | Lyanne Melendez

Posted on 07/22/2014 11:40:28 PM PDT by BenLurkin

If the tax passes, it will be adding an additional 2 cents per ounce. A 12-ounce can of Coke, under the new tax would now cost you an additional 24 cents. A 20-ounce bottle of Snapple would coast you an additional 40 cents.

San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar said, "So two pennies per ounce to reduce the amount of harmful beverages by 30-40 percent, according to the best economist in the city."

He was referring to the office of the San Francisco economist. Mar is one of the authors of the measure. He and others attending a rally at City Hall believe adding this tax would discourage people from buying soft drinks, especially younger people who don't have a steady stream of money.

If it passes, the city could collect up to $50 million -- money that would go to support underfunded programs like school lunches, physical education and after school programs.

Supporters of the tax proposal say it would also improve the city's health and reduce the number of cases of diabetes.

(Excerpt) Read more at abc7news.com ...


TOPICS: US: California
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 07/22/2014 11:40:28 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Normally, I’d say this is a pretty stupid idea. But over the past two years...I’ve kinda read up on the sugar mafia. There’s an enormous effort to put excess sugar into just about everything these days. A guy could read the side of packages and grasp this....but the addiction angle is hurting us because you just can’t quit most sugar products now. While I think regulation is stupid....so is using excess sugar in our diet. It took me two years to wean myself off all sodas (even diet stuff).


2 posted on 07/22/2014 11:44:13 PM PDT by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

So your neighbor gets to decide how much you pay for sugar? Do you realize how for into wrong that is?


3 posted on 07/22/2014 11:51:23 PM PDT by Ace's Dad (Proud grandpa of a newly born "Brit Chick" named Poppy Loucks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

More “Big Gulp” policies from the left.


4 posted on 07/22/2014 11:56:26 PM PDT by Thunder90 (All posts soley represent my own opinion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

My initial instinct was to propose a per-word tax for city council members... thinking they need to listen more and talk/do less. Then I remembered this was San Francisco and realized I quit caring about what they do in the city and county of SF a long time ago.


5 posted on 07/23/2014 12:13:55 AM PDT by leakinInTheBlueSea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

It would be more direct and honest if SFO were to vote in favor of mass suicide.


6 posted on 07/23/2014 12:19:57 AM PDT by twister881
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“harmful beverages”

Sugar consumption is a lifestyle choice. Imagine if San Francisco tried to tax harmful behaviors, as well.


7 posted on 07/23/2014 12:26:53 AM PDT by rightwingcrazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingcrazy

Stay out of my kitchen!


8 posted on 07/23/2014 12:29:17 AM PDT by leakinInTheBlueSea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: leakinInTheBlueSea

I thought there was already a FEDERAL tax on sugar.

I remember years ago reading about how so many of our secular holidays were designed to up the usage of sugar...such as easter candy, halloween candy etc. to fill the federal coffers with $$$.

I’ll bet if someone searched really well, the info will turn up.


9 posted on 07/23/2014 12:34:26 AM PDT by PrairieLady2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rightwingcrazy

>> Imagine if San Francisco tried to tax harmful behaviors

The bureaucrat knows that children from well-rounded families grow up to pay taxes; thus, heterosexual activity shouldn’t be taxed.


10 posted on 07/23/2014 12:36:03 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rightwingcrazy
Sugar consumption is a lifestyle choice. Imagine if San Francisco tried to tax harmful behaviors, as well.

That's the paradox of homosexual thought. They need the authoritarianism in order to force people to accept their choices. But they need personal freedom in order to be able to make those choices. It's tough being a queer, and not just for the obvious reasons.

11 posted on 07/23/2014 12:38:02 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Only a bunch of commie fsggots could come up with an idea like this.


12 posted on 07/23/2014 12:38:44 AM PDT by Rome2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“...according to the best economist in the city.”

That’s not much of a compliment.


13 posted on 07/23/2014 1:04:29 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

There should be a substantial tax on buggery. It has enormous health care costs. Will Progressive San Francisco be taking the lead on this crisis ?


14 posted on 07/23/2014 1:11:14 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

wasn’t the Sugar Act and the Molasses Act all part of the whole “Taxation without Representation” issue which led to the Revolutionary War?


15 posted on 07/23/2014 1:13:25 AM PDT by latina4dubya (when i have money i buy books... if i have anything left, i buy 6-inch heels and a bottle of wine...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

That’s quite a tax. If a can of soda costs 50 cents, it’s a ~50% tax. If it costs a dollar, it’s still a ~25% tax.

A 2 liter bottle is 67.6 ounces so you’d get a tax of $1.35 on a 2 liter bottle.

A case of cans would be 288 ounces with a tax of $5.76, more than a case of Sam’s cola actually costs here.


16 posted on 07/23/2014 1:16:58 AM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

And the idiots thought the authoritarians would stop at cigarettes.

Don’t you know, it’s cool to hate fat people now, since hating cigarette smokers has proven to be such a tax success.

Next up, on the fat haters targets: vegetable oils and animal fat.


17 posted on 07/23/2014 1:51:58 AM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

What about HFCS? Is that considered ‘sugar’? What about artificial sweeteners?


18 posted on 07/23/2014 2:48:24 AM PDT by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Seems like a great business opportunity to me. Find the nearest small town outside of San Fran and open a convenience store and advertise that you offer sugar laden drinks and snacks with no tax. I would drive a few miles just to stick a finger in their eyes, if I used those products.

Aint free enterprise great.


19 posted on 07/23/2014 3:23:51 AM PDT by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
Translated: I am too stupid to know what I am eating so we all need food police to decide what we eat.

Bravo.

20 posted on 07/23/2014 3:55:37 AM PDT by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Another tax?
Yeah. let's just keep expanding our wonderful, efficient, beneficent, governments at every level.
21 posted on 07/23/2014 3:55:57 AM PDT by Amagi (Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo
Next up, on the fat haters targets: vegetable oils and animal fat.

There really isn't limit to the BS these slime bags will come up with, is there?

22 posted on 07/23/2014 3:57:50 AM PDT by Mark17 (Obama & Nero? Both Emperors. The difference is Nero plays a fiddle, while Obama plays Minnesota Fats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

sodastream and the liberals in SanFran can go pound sand


23 posted on 07/23/2014 4:00:09 AM PDT by blueplum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Next the Tea Tax and after that the Stamp Act. I feel more British everyday of the new monarchy.
24 posted on 07/23/2014 5:25:32 AM PDT by lostboy61 (Lock and Load and stand your ground!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The SF Board of Supervisors should tax stupidity; every Democrat voter needs to pay a stupidity tax [$1 to $10] to cast a ballot. It would be a great way to mug liberals by introducing them to reality and put money in the city's coffers.
25 posted on 07/23/2014 7:37:33 AM PDT by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson