Skip to comments.San Francisco Board of Supes to put sugar tax before voters
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 ...
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).
So your neighbor gets to decide how much you pay for sugar? Do you realize how for into wrong that is?
More “Big Gulp” policies from the left.
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.
It would be more direct and honest if SFO were to vote in favor of mass suicide.
Sugar consumption is a lifestyle choice. Imagine if San Francisco tried to tax harmful behaviors, as well.
Stay out of my kitchen!
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.
>> 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.
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.
Only a bunch of commie fsggots could come up with an idea like this.
“...according to the best economist in the city.”
That’s not much of a compliment.
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 ?
wasn’t the Sugar Act and the Molasses Act all part of the whole “Taxation without Representation” issue which led to the Revolutionary War?
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.
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.
What about HFCS? Is that considered ‘sugar’? What about artificial sweeteners?
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.
There really isn't limit to the BS these slime bags will come up with, is there?
sodastream and the liberals in SanFran can go pound sand