NYC Board of Health approves Mayor's "Supersize" soda ban

[Turbo19]

At this point I'd just charge a $0.01 tax. Each cent would be split between the city and the compliant merchant. It sounds crazy, but it's even better than the ban.

 

Anything to appease the all mighty Bloomberg.

[realizm]

At this point I'd just charge a $0.01 tax. Each cent would be split between the city and the compliant merchant. It sounds crazy, but it's even better than the ban.

 

Anything to appease the all mighty Bloomberg.

 

You stated that they tried to pass similar bans on Californians as regards to Styrofoam I remember. Do you have the same problem with this sort of back and forth politics on bans on the west coast?

[realizm]

Deleted: Here we go with this double post issue again *sigh*

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Saw this coming a million miles away.

 

I can understand your concerns with skyrocking insurance premiums as a domino effect from the slowly progressive harm to the health of people who overindulge in sodas but again as I was telling you as an counter-argument, people are to decide for themselves what they want to consume. It's not like we are dealing with people who consume dogsh*t, it's only soda. Big deal. (OK that was a bit extreme, I just wantted to say that for the shock value) but the point is again we all know that Bloomberg is imposing bans to collect revenues through ripping us NYers off with FINES. That was the crux of my view on this from the start of this discussion from page 1. I would think that would carry more weight then simply going through sleepless nights over taxes taken out of your next paycheck or skyrocketing health  insurance premiums. 

 

I am not insinuating you are an elitist, please sir don't take this the wrong way, but I am speaking on behalf of the average lower middle class New Yorker!!!

 

OK let me put it this way as a hypothetical scenerio: What is your favorite wine? What if Mr. Bloomberg put a prohibition on your favorite savory wine? Or your favorite food product at Whole Foods because of saturated fat content, high sodium and cholesterol? Would you like that? You would be pretty pissed off to heck I'm sure, saying to yourself "WTF! I have a right to get my favorite delicacy at my own favorite supermarket!! WTF is this?" Think about that in my argument here.

lol...Well let's think about why Bloomberg is trying to collect revenues to begin with.... The city is going BROKE from pensions and skyrocketing healthcare costs which is crippling the city... I personally have no problem with his idea because they do the same thing in Europe and the purpose of it is to curb certain habits.  For example, in Europe you pay for EVERYTHING.  You pay for plastic bags, pay for condiments and so on, so if you want to put 10 packets of ketchup on your french fries, you pay for all 10 packets.  At .25 cents/per packet most would think twice about paying $2.50 for ketchup and that's the whole idea.  

 

What's happened with this society is that we've become a society that says I'm going to eat a whole pizza pie because I can and there is no connection with the consequences.  I still go back to the question of what happened to people using commonsense? Now the only issue I have with the soda ban is that it didn't go far enough.  What he should've done was to levy a tax on it similar to the way the city taxes cigarettes and make it very expensive because soda has tons of sugar, high fructose corn syrup and other garbage in it (particularly the processed garbage) and many people are consuming extremely large amounts of it. Hell I remember being in college and seeing tons of kids drinking soda for breakfast.  What's happening is things are being abused and there needs to be a consequence for this abuse, esp. since the consequences that come with it are affecting others.

 

Now I drink soda and do so as a treat... I get a small 12 oz bottle of natural soda by Gus from Whole Foods, which has far less sugar and has natural ingredients, no high fructose corn syrup and has sparkling water in it for the fizz, and no caffeine either.  Now it's a better version of soda, but I still have commonsense enough not to drink that everyday... That's my point... Why should someone have to threaten you with a tax just for you to get the idea of portion control and eating properly?

 

We're in a generation where I think we must act to stop this nonsense from going on.  Parents are not raising their kids to eat properly #1 which is a HUGE problem and all they eat is garbage takeout food.  I mean my mom would cook when I was growing up because she understood the importance of eating well, but a lot of kids are not getting this and so they're eating poorly and we have a generation of more and more obese kids just eating and drinking themselves into oblivion because "they can".  I think it's ridiculous and support any tax or anything that is done to curb the problem. When society loses all sense to understand right from wrong and to go about things in a responsible manner, then government must step in and remedy the problem because if we don't not only will we have a severe health crisis (which we already have) but our economy is going to suffer significantly as obesity is tied into economic growth and productivity.

 

We are spending billions in unnecessary healthcare costs while out infrastructure falls apart all because we want to endless garbage because we can. So ridiculous and irresponsible.

[Turbo19]

Deleted: Here we go with this double post issue again *sigh*

No problem. Moving to the topic at hand.

 

 

You stated that they tried to pass similar bans on Californians as regards to Styrofoam I remember. Do you have the same problem with this sort of back and forth politics on bans on the west coast?

No, at least not yet. And you better believe there'd be a fight if such a ban ever arose. A cool carbonated beverage can be one of the cheapest forms of relief for the intense summers in California, even cheaper than water sadly, 

 

Granted that if Bloomberg's law were replicated exactly how it was presented convinence stores would be excluded, so most would be unaffected, but still, sometimes you just want to chill in a fast food joint to grab a bite to eat and enjoy unlimited refills.

 

lol...Well let's think about why Bloomberg is trying to collect revenues to begin with.... The city is going BROKE from pensions and skyrocketing healthcare costs which is crippling the city... I personally have no problem with his idea because they do the same thing in Europe and the purpose of it is to curb certain habits.  For example, in Europe you pay for EVERYTHING.  You pay for plastic bags, pay for condiments and so on, so if you want to put 10 packets of ketchup on your french fries, you pay for all 10 packets.  What's happened with this society is that we've become a society that says I'm going to eat a whole pizza pie because I can and there is no connection with the consequences.  I still go back to the question of what happened to people using commonsense. Now the only issue I have with the soda ban is that it didn't go far enough.  What he should've done was to levy a tax on it similar to the way the city taxes cigarettes and make it very expensive because soda has tons of sugar, high fructose corn syrup and other garbage in it (particularly the processed garbage) and many people are consuming extremely large amounts of it. Hell I remember being in college and seeing tons of kids drinking soda for breakfast.  What's happening is things are being abused and there needs to be a consequence for this abuse, esp. since the consequences that come with it are affecting others.

Like a said, a miniscule tax would be best for all.

 

And my personal opinion as a regular soda drinker, I'd even pay up to a tax $0.10 for fountain soda. As it is here I am paying CRV for cans and bottles so not much different.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Like a said, a miniscule tax would be best for all.

 

And my personal opinion as a regular soda drinker, I'd even pay up to a tax $0.10 for fountain soda. As it is here I am paying CRV for cans and bottles so not much different.

Yes, and I can assure you that's exactly what will happen.  The city simply cannot afford not to do anything while the economy is decimated with this nonsense.

[Turbo19]

Yes, and I can assure you that's exactly what will happen.  The city simply cannot afford not to do anything while the economy is decimated with this nonsense.

Just a quick question. I know NY has the $0.05 charge on cans and bottles, but can someone fill me in on the current sales tax rate in NYC?

 

Now obviously if such a tax on soda were to go in place, does anyone have suggestions on how it would be regulated and/or enforced?

[realizm]

Just a quick question. I know NY has the $0.05 charge on cans and bottles, but can someone fill me in on the current sales tax rate in NYC?

 

Now obviously if such a tax on soda were to go in place, does anyone have suggestions on how it would be regulated and/or enforced?

 

City tax rate sits at 4.5% currently.

 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/business/nys_sales_tax.shtml

 

On the second question the revised soda tax is pending. Could be only a few cents. According to sources in the daily news and a plethora of sites apparently New York intends to rake in $652 million a year if a each soda was taxed just one cent per ounce. Some experts are staking as high as 50% which is absurb. So no solid answer on it yet. Lobbyists are still debating the issue, it's too early to tell how it would pan out.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/nyregion/03sodatax.html?_r=0

[Turbo19]

City tax rate sits at 4.5% currently.

 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/business/nys_sales_tax.shtml

Better than Califonia's 7.75%.

[realizm]

Wow that's high. It must be a killer buying a good pair of Jordan's over there.

[Phantom909]

to all you nanny state lovers of masterminds, ill pay a higher tax on large sodas if i dont have to pay taxes for abortions, contraceptives and premiums to my health insurance for pap smears and breast enhacements which are mandated by the GOVERNMENT^ already, why should i pay for stuff ill never use. You guys cant have it both ways

 

joe

[Grand Concourse]

He's gonna appeal and I'm still gonna have to deal with those annoying sugar ads on TV. I GET IT, I WON'T EAT SUGAR PACKETS DAMNIT.

and where did they find that music from, the 80s? Wow that's government commercials for you.

[checkmatechamp13]

And my personal opinion as a regular soda drinker, I'd even pay up to a tax $0.10 for fountain soda. As it is here I am paying CRV for cans and bottles so not much different.

 

CRV is a little different because at least you can get the money back if you're willing to go through the trouble.

 

City tax rate sits at 4.5% currently.

 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/business/nys_sales_tax.shtml

 

On the second question the revised soda tax is pending. Could be only a few cents. According to sources in the daily news and a plethora of sites apparently New York intends to rake in $652 million a year if a each soda was taxed just one cent per ounce. Some experts are staking as high as 50% which is absurb. So no solid answer on it yet. Lobbyists are still debating the issue, it's too early to tell how it would pan out.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/nyregion/03sodatax.html?_r=0

 

Well, city and state combined is 8.375%.

 

And a penny an ounce is too high. A 2-liter bottle of name-brand soda costs under $2, and you're charging about 68 cents just in taxes. Add in the sales tax and deposit and everything, and almost 1/3 of the price is taxes. (Or basically, it's being taxed at almost 50%) You get the store brand, where it's like $1.25 for a 3-liter, and it's over half that you're paying in tax.

 

I can see maybe a 10% tax or something, but a penny an ounce is too high. This isn't cigarettes, it's soda.

[realizm]

Well, city and state combined is 8.375%.

 

Yes I overlooked the 4% state tax and did not add that in, so that figure is correct. As far as the tentative soda tax, I just threw out a rough estimate as there is not a definite decision on what the percentage on the soda tax will be yet. Good post on your part on your critical thinking ability.

[QM1to6Ave]

to all you nanny state lovers of masterminds, ill pay a higher tax on large sodas if i dont have to pay taxes for abortions, contraceptives and premiums to my health insurance for pap smears and breast enhacements which are mandated by the GOVERNMENT^ already, why should i pay for stuff ill never use. You guys cant have it both ways

 

joe

Do you pay for any type of health care plan? I can guarentee you that you are paying for things you will never use. That is the nature of any type of insurance plan. 

[MHV9218]

to all you nanny state lovers of masterminds, ill pay a higher tax on large sodas if i dont have to pay taxes for abortions, contraceptives and premiums to my health insurance for pap smears and breast enhacements which are mandated by the GOVERNMENT^ already, why should i pay for stuff ill never use. You guys cant have it both ways

 

joe

 

I mean, that's just an ignorant comment. What, you should never be taxed for something that doesn't apply directly to you? So you should never pay taxes that support the school system cause you'll never be back in elementary school? So you should never pay taxes that support the transit system cause you'll never take the bus or subway? That's not how this country works. We pitch in together to make it a healthier and better place for all of us. Selfish and ignorant comments like that are the root of evil in this country...

[realizm]

^^^^ That's why I didn't respond to that post he made. I didn't want to bother with the headache of ending up in a back and forth tirade. Silence speaks louder than words.

[RTS CNG Command]

As someone who used to drink exclusively soda by the bottle years ago (and almost never drink it now), I'm a bit disappointed with this rule, but not surprised. This was a good idea on its own, but there were way too many loopholes that make this ban even more confusing and set precedent for lawsuits that chop this law down more and more to the point of it no longer existing. It was poorly written that could start a nasty headache that the city doesn't want to encounter. Furthermore, this is targeting just one part of a really big problem. The nasty "sugars" soda has is a major causer of diabetes, but the quality of food on the whole is sunk. Much better, healthier, and affordable alternatives throughout the city (high and low-income) are needed, not just specific neighborhoods.

 

But even though the judge didn't say this, this law also violated civil liberties. As a result, anyone who thinks this would work in this city is deluding themselves. If he enacted this ban to a private company he helped run, then he can do this. But Bloomberg isn't: He's running as the mayor — He's working for the government, so he must follow the constitution of the state and country. As long as their actions don't harm anyone else, people are free to drink whatever soda they want regardless of quantity. Restricting this choice violates this clause and runs the risk of nasty lawsuits (including one from the ACLU) breathing down his or the city's neck.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

As someone who used to drink exclusively soda by the bottle years ago (and almost never drink it now), I'm a bit disappointed with this rule, but not surprised. This was a good idea on its own, but there were way too many loopholes that make this ban even more confusing and set precedent for lawsuits that chop this law down more and more to the point of it no longer existing. It was poorly written that could start a nasty headache that the city doesn't want to encounter. Furthermore, this is targeting just one part of a really big problem. The nasty "sugars" soda has is a major causer of diabetes, but the quality of food on the whole is sunk. Much better, healthier, and affordable alternatives throughout the city (high and low-income) are needed, not just specific neighborhoods.

 

But even though the judge didn't say this, this law also violated civil liberties. As a result, anyone who thinks this would work in this city is deluding themselves. If he enacted this ban to a private company he helped run, then he can do this. But Bloomberg isn't: He's running as the mayor — He's working for the government, so he must follow the constitution of the state and country. As long as their actions don't harm anyone else, people are free to drink whatever soda they want regardless of quantity. Restricting this choice violates this clause and runs the risk of nasty lawsuits (including one from the ACLU) breathing down his or the city's neck.

Well the problem is that only certain establishments have to follow city guidelines while the others follow state guidelines like 7/11 convenience stores.  That's why the proposal is rather quirky.  However, there is no restriction of choice here.... One could still drink 64 ounces.  You would just have to buy a few more sodas rather than buying one big one or refill your cup more often, which is a small inconvenience, if that.  The point of it would be to get people to realize how much they're drinking and perhaps think about that and stop drinking so much of that garbage.  I mean seriously, there are some people that do drink 64 ounces which is ridiculous and they drink that stuff nonstop and have absolutely no idea what they're drinking and those diet sodas aren't much better either since some have been shown to cause cancer... The soda addicts kind of remind me of those Starbucks addicts you see with the big cups of coffee... 

 

The way I see it we have too many people abusing food for the wrong reasons and their actions are indeed hurting not only themselves but others as well because other people have to pay literally for their irresponsibility through higher healthcare premiums and taxes.

 

Like I said, I DO drink soda, but I drink normal portions first off (12 ounces and no processed soda either) and have it as a treat, with ingredients that I can pronounce and know.  No high fructose corn syrup and God knows what other chemicals...

[realizm]

VG8, I posted this general response in your thread starter on the Mississippi "Anti-Bloomberg" law. Thoughts on that?

 

 

Fun fact: Keep in mind ppl that some people have high metabolisms. They can consume large meals and it has no effect on their IBW, BP levels, sodium, glucose, and cholesterol levels. Especially if they are always in high levels of activity and/or have regular exercise routines.

 

**Oh to add: And if such persons sleep well (7 hours or more). Sleep deprivation can adversely cause a person to become obese.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

VG8, I posted this general response in your thread starter on the Mississippi "Anti-Bloomberg" law. Thoughts on that?

Well there is truth to your comments... I try not to eat too late because I don't sleep well sometimes or if I do, I wake up feeling bloated and the food doesn't digest as well and you do put on weight eating late.  Also when you don't get enough sleep, you usually are up late snacking which I have been guilty of as well.  Now I have a pretty decent metabolism, but then again I'm also 6'4" so my appetite is different from folks with smaller frames.  However, I also get a ton of exercise.  I walk around Riverdale all of the time and enjoy taking walks.  The steep hills also allow me to burn more since they require more energy.  The only thing I don't do is anything to get the heartbeat up, but I generally walk pretty fast so when I do have to run I am not out of breath at all like this morning... Had to run to catch the Hudson Rail Link bus and was not out of breath at all.

[RTS CNG Command]

 

You're grasping for straws with your argument. With the option for a much larger cup, can, or bottle of soda available, consumers would want that choice without having to go back and get hit more in the wallet. If they want to buy it, regardless of the logic, they should have that choice. The problem is the government mandating this maximum limit, something they can't do by law in the U.S. Plus, the shitty writing this law has makes it even more confusing and risks making it pointless. If the ACLU gets involved, New York City and Bloomberg are in a world of trouble. It sets precedent for a much bigger draconian law that can give this city an even nastier reputation.

 

There are only two ways to combat this legally.

 

1. Tax the soda more if the portions are bigger than sixteen ounces (or twenty, as Americans love round numbers). The people can get the soda, but will have to pony up a bit more in change.

 

2. Have the industries voluntarily pull the big sizes away (or have them available for a higher cost). Government can't do it by force, but the private industries are allowed to pull the jumbo sizes this on their own. Unfortunately, these sizes mean possibly less customers, so I don't expect the private sector to follow suit.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You're grasping for straws with your argument. With the option for a much larger cup, can, or bottle of soda available, consumers would want that choice without having to go back and get hit more in the wallet. If they want to buy it, regardless of the logic, they should have that choice. The problem is the government mandating this maximum limit, something they can't do by law in the U.S. Plus, the shitty writing this law has makes it even more confusing and risks making it pointless. If the ACLU gets involved, New York City and Bloomberg are in a world of trouble. It sets precedent for a much bigger draconian law that can give this city an even nastier reputation.

 

There are only two ways to combat this legally.

 

1. Tax the soda more if the portions are bigger than sixteen ounces (or twenty, as Americans love round numbers). The people can get the soda, but will have to pony up a bit more in change.

 

2. Have the industries voluntarily pull the big sizes away (or have them available for a higher cost). Government can't do it by force, but the private industries are allowed to pull the jumbo sizes this on their own. Unfortunately, these sizes mean possibly less customers, so I don't expect the private sector to follow suit.

No I'm not... If someone is getting refills, all they have to do is get off of their lazy @ss and refill the cup a few extra times.  Doesn't cost them anything but a little extra time and God forbid they actually burn a few calories in the process.  The government can do as it sees fit to do if it means that the overall health or safety of its citizens is in danger and this is certainly the case here.  You have people dying every day from something that can be prevented and in fact it would be irresponsible of the city not to do something about the problem.

 

He may not win the appeal, but I applaud him for trying.  And while you bring up the higher taxes, did you forget that the previous Governor (Governor Paterson) tried to levy more taxes on soda at the state level??  That didn't fair too well either because people were up in arms about that too, so essentially the consensus is let people drink themselves into oblivion while they cripple the American economy, the healthcare system and the American taxpayer in the process. 

 

As for industries doing it voluntarily well Lucky's is doing just that. It's nice to see businesses that have some sense of morality and aren't just interested in profits.  It's funny that these businesses claim that they can't survive without selling these oversized drinks, but what were they doing when 12 oz and 16 oz sodas were the only sized sold back when I was growing up???  Total BS to justify selling these enormous sized drinks.

 

These same businesses made the same arguments when the no smoking ban was implemented and look at how well many restaurants are doing today with the ban in place, even with us still in a recovery from the recession.

 

Explain this to me though... On the one hand you would support a tax levied on bigger drinks but yet you have a problem with drinks having limits to the sizes in which they are sold?? The idea is pretty much the same and in fact in the option that you prefer, consumers may be forced to pay more than with the other option, so I don't see the difference.  They can still drink as much soda as they want.  They would just have to buy more bottles or refill their cups more.

[Phantom909]

I mean, that's just an ignorant comment. What, you should never be taxed for something that doesn't apply directly to you? So you should never pay taxes that support the school system cause you'll never be back in elementary school? So you should never pay taxes that support the transit system cause you'll never take the bus or subway? That's not how this country works. We pitch in together to make it a healthier and better place for all of us. Selfish and ignorant comments like that are the root of evil in this country...

 

 

ok stick, reading is fundamental, this thread and my answer was directed to the cost of health care, it had nothing to do with the taxes i pay for schools and public transport, which i dont have a problem with, along with police, fire, sanitation and other parts of the civil society. you drones are talking about punishing people for lack of personal accountability for drinking large sodas and not wanting to pay increased costs, and i said id be willing to pay for a higher tax on large drinks, yet when i bought up that i dont like paying for sluts, like sandra fluke, for abortions and contraceptives, showing their lack of personal responsibility by not keeping their legs closed, or paying for things that insurance plans are mandated by the government that i will never use, thats where i draw the line. health care costs can be lowered with basic reforms, which you drones dont want. pitching together is an american trait, and i have given plenty to charities for victims of things that are beyond their control, but i dont like paying for crap for people who cant control themselves and want a handout for their actions. so as usual, you are the ignorant stick

 

Do you pay for any type of health care plan? I can guarentee you that you are paying for things you will never use. That is the nature of any type of insurance plan. 

 

uh yeah, i pay for health, fire, life and auto insurance, and i know that things are in them which i will never use, does that make it right in your world? i have no problem paying for anything that i need and use, but im against paying for other people`s transgressions that are mandated by governments that are destroying middle class americans like me with their constant crack like addiction of stealing money from us for bullcrap

 

joe

. 

[MHV9218]

ok stick, reading is fundamental, this thread and my answer was directed to the cost of health care, it had nothing to do with the taxes i pay for schools and public transport, which i dont have a problem with, along with police, fire, sanitation and other parts of the civil society. you drones are talking about punishing people for lack of personal accountability for drinking large sodas and not wanting to pay increased costs, and i said id be willing to pay for a higher tax on large drinks, yet when i bought up that i dont like paying for sluts, like sandra fluke, for abortions and contraceptives, showing their lack of personal responsibility by not keeping their legs closed, or paying for things that insurance plans are mandated by the government that i will never use, thats where i draw the line. health care costs can be lowered with basic reforms, which you drones dont want. pitching together is an american trait, and i have given plenty to charities for victims of things that are beyond their control, but i dont like paying for crap for people who cant control themselves and want a handout for their actions. so as usual, you are the ignorant stick 

 

Wow, did you miss the point or did you MISS the point! Whoo!