I am happy to pass along news that the Legislativegazette.com reported yesterday, in an article by Smita Bhooplapur entitled, “Legislature Discards Soda Tax” as follows:
“The Senate and Assembly both rejected a proposed tax on sugar-sweetened beverages after the beverage industry relentlessly protested against it over the past few months.
Although both houses of the Legislature excluded the proposed tax from their budget resolutions, negotiations with the governor over a final 2010-2011 budget are pending, and the ultimate decision will be known after an agreement is reached.”
The article went on to say, “Sen. Diane Savino, D-Staten Island, who opposes the tax, said, “We have uniformly come to the conclusion that this tax is a bad idea.”
Dismissing the argument that the tax would help decrease obesity, Savino said more emphasis needs to given to primary and preventive care instead of “picking people’s pocket in an attempt to fight childhood obesity.”
Maybe now our local and federal governments can get on with the more serious business of addressing obesity and health from a more responsible and comprehensive perspective and also educating consumers about the truly unhealthy ingredients in traditional soda (like high fructose corn syrup and chemical preservatives) and stop obsessing about natural cane sugar.
Taxes, Really? says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvO7nW4EqA
This video makes me think of unintended consequences. These politicians speak about taxing pennies. This regressive tax adds dollars to our grocery bill. I wonder about if these same hacks have considered how much of this tax will be spent on replacing government letterhead after they’re thrown out of office.
April 24, 2010, 4:13 amStu says:
Well, the ironic part about the proposed “soda tax” is that the vast majority of soda does not contain “sugar.” It really contains high fructose corn syrup, amd the reason the big soda manufracturers choose that over cane sugar is because of the inexpensive proice. The price is so cheap because of government subsidies. So what the proponents of the soda tax are really calling for is a system that TAXES consumers and provides massive subsiudies to corn producers, making high fructose corn syrup cheap (and, indirectly, making traditional soda cheap) and then they want to TAX consumers again, to make the soda more expensive so consumers–allegedly–will consume less. It is just one more piece of this ill-conceived legislation that makes no sense.
May 15, 2010, 6:20 pm