Yet another war on carbon.
3¢ tax on soft drinks?
You would be doing some serious crying in Canada.....15% Goods and Services Tax....
Soft Drinks are a "luxury/not necessary" item.....
Between 2004 and 2012, sales of goods manufactured by the Canadian soft drink, bottled water and ice industry increased 17.5%
and not just in one State....HC wants to do it on a Federal level. That raises the price of a 16 oz. Pepsi another $.36 per bottle or can. Now add it all up for every single can/bottle in various sizes, including liter bottles, and what gets sold at a restaurant or bar in each drink across the nation and you're talking some serious bucks for liberal Dems to spend willy-nilly AGAIN. IF they could come up with something like this that would be guaranteed to go towards paying down the national debt, perhaps people wouldn't mind so much, but that's never gonna happen. They are already talking about using it to get PRE-K DAYCARE for Christ's sake as if that's a right that everyone should have, including those who have NO CHILDREN but will be taxed to pay for it. They can take the F & U trains right out of NYC to their own personal la-la-land as far as I'm concerned.
home from the hospital. They'll be cared for by government funded systems with parents having visiting days as they wish. They'll be able to take the kids on vacations or occasional visits where they live but don't have their own rooms. Parents won't have to pay for their college education but can attend their graduations if they buy a ticket to the event.
is that they'll probably be promoted as a health issue with the intention of reducing sugar consumption but, at the same time, they'll be depending on the money to fund some program such as Pre K day care as mentioned. One would think a tax to promote health should be one that eventually reduces the tax revenue on the targeted villain (in this case, sugar). Thus, if the tax measure is successful, the Pre K plan would necessarily fail. Any such tax should have revenue from it go into correcting the problem it's designed to address. If obesity from excess sugar intake is the problem to be addressed, the revenue should be used for programs to assist the already obese and those headed in that direction. Thus, if successful, the tax and the problem being addressed become self cancelling. The idea of spending the money on something else that will require a continuous stream of money has no basis in logic. Either our legislators that dream these things up are really stupid or they rely on stupid people to keep them in office.
that liberal Dems have promised over years.....and then look at how many actually work out? It's all done 'in the moment' as a political strategy to garner votes from people who really want to believe it's real and that that gravy train will keep on traveling in their direction. Short term promises and no liberal knows how to look down the reality road. Instant gratification is the norm now.
As for obesity....especially in children.....perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if liberals hadn't also taken away/stopped recess and exercise. I can remember doing all kinds of exercises during grade school such as jumping jacks, jump rope, monkey bars, etc. out in the playground during recess or other 'breaks' and I honestly don't know of ANY school anymore that pushes that kind of behavior. Instead, the government has decided how many calories and what types of food our kids can eat, even to the point of having teachers take away a homemade lunch because it doesn't meet those standards/requirements.
Indeed, children nowadays spend more time viewing TV, doing computer games, browsing the Internet and communicating with their friends via social media and less time doing outdoor activities like you describe than we did when we were young. And that's not only in breaks at school, but always.
I wonder if you can blame the democrats for this technology push. There probably are a lot of reasons, but few are directly influenced by federal policies or even by state policies.
BO has expanded the program to include internet service on them, which means they all get new free phones with that new technology. The original purpose was so they could apply for jobs and know they could get a return call for interviews......Evidently, they all got some type of job to where they can afford to pay for the ISP they can now connect to???? But don't have to pay for the upgraded phones??????
That sugar is the cause of obesity? I've heard of those who quit sugar entirely, only to gain more weight than when they allowed sugar. The argument goes something along lines of the sugar gave them the quicker lift, but slower carbs didn't, so the total carb count taken in however was then higher, as they tried to reach the "lift" they'd become accustomed to with sugar.
One cannot become obese by eating sugar but one who is obese won't be able to trim down if they continue to consume as much sugar as the body needs for general use. Since we need sugar for energy and heat production, our bodies use what's available first rather than break down fats and proteins to make it. Sugar consumption doesn't directly cause weight gain but can prevent a person from losing weight. One who is obese became that way from eating too much fat and protein and not from drinking soda.
like mac and cheese or spaghetti because they fill you up fast but put on weight quickly....and most low income families consume those types of meals regularly. That's why mandatory exercise at school during the daytime is so beneficial because once the kids come home, they don't ride bikes or walk like they used to anymore.
Don't you love it when the only time it seems that any politician becomes creative is when reaching for more bucks as in taxes. yeah, I know the people could benefit but again, do I really or anyone for long.
Now, ask yourself, what federal job can someone have after being elected and get voted out and receive a generous pension? Maybe, I should run for dog catcher and started my political career years ago. ha! -----Willy woof