Does / Should The State Or Federal Government Have The Right To Punish Americans For What They Buy?

[easyt65]

That new soda tax in Seattle is working out about as well as Chicago's - Hot Air

'Another year, another soda tax. This one was shoved through in the city of Seattle by the municipal government. As usual, its purported intent was to improve the health and lives of residents by “modifying their behavior” and having them drink fewer sugary beverages. And it’s definitely a muscular incentive for new behavior to be sure. The price of soda has nearly doubled overnight.'


Is it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?



"Behave ... conduct yourself in a way pleasing and / or acceptable to the STATE or punishment will be imposed upon you to force you to change...."


REALLY?

 

[depotoo]

I heard they tried it in Chicago and they rescinded it due to the fallout over it.

 

[depotoo]

It actually brings financial harm to the industries they are inadvertently targeting.

 

[Syriusly]

That new soda tax in Seattle is working out about as well as Chicago's - Hot Air

'Another year, another soda tax. This one was shoved through in the city of Seattle by the municipal government. As usual, its purported intent was to improve the health and lives of residents by “modifying their behavior” and having them drink fewer sugary beverages. And it’s definitely a muscular incentive for new behavior to be sure. The price of soda has nearly doubled overnight.'


Is it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?



"Behave ... conduct yourself in a way pleasing and / or acceptable to the STATE or punishment will be imposed upon you to force you to change...."


REALLY?

The Federal government can punish you right now for buying all sorts of things from either Cuba or Iran.

Is that okay?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I say no, I hate taxes being used for social engineering. But with that being said, it happens all the time on all levels.

And is it any different than adding a tariff to goods from other countries?

 

[easyt65]

The Federal government can punish you right now for buying all sorts of things from either Cuba or Iran. Is that okay?

In those cases those countries have been deemed 'enemies of the United States'. The State / Federal Govt is not declaring Coke and Pepsi 'enemies of the state'.

As pointed out, the state / federal govt does damage to those companies, as their profits go down thus impacting the tax revenue and the taxes paid by the companies, hurts the economy, etc....

 

[Timmy]

That new soda tax in Seattle is working out about as well as Chicago's - Hot Air

'Another year, another soda tax. This one was shoved through in the city of Seattle by the municipal government. As usual, its purported intent was to improve the health and lives of residents by “modifying their behavior” and having them drink fewer sugary beverages. And it’s definitely a muscular incentive for new behavior to be sure. The price of soda has nearly doubled overnight.'


Is it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?



"Behave ... conduct yourself in a way pleasing and / or acceptable to the STATE or punishment will be imposed upon you to force you to change...."


REALLY?

I say YES to your question . But I’m not crazy about the soda thing as I am wh say cigarettes.

Smokers often come down wh major health issues that end up on the taxpayer dime .

 

[Timmy]

The Federal government can punish you right now for buying all sorts of things from either Cuba or Iran. Is that okay?

In those cases those countries have been deemed 'enemies of the United States'. The State / Federal Govt is not declaring Coke and Pepsi 'enemies of the state'.

As pointed out, the state / federal govt does damage to those companies, as their profits go down thus impacting the tax revenue and the taxes paid by the companies, hurts the economy, etc....

And those companies do damage to the citizens of the usa.

Do you believe the inverse ? Should the gov reward good behavior in buying. ?

 

[easyt65]

I say YES to your question . But I’m not crazy about the soda thing as I am wh say cigarettes. Smokers often come down wh major health issues that end up on the taxpayer dime .

Thank you for your response.

I agree with you on the cigarettes, primarily because the companies intentionally, illegally made them addictive despite knowing the dangers. They also targeted convicted prisoners, mental patients, and children.

The government allowed it / allows it because 'it's all about the Benjamin's - the Govt got a HUGE freakin' settlement $$$ and allowed the industry to survive because of it.

 

[emilynghiem]

That new soda tax in Seattle is working out about as well as Chicago's - Hot Air

'Another year, another soda tax. This one was shoved through in the city of Seattle by the municipal government. As usual, its purported intent was to improve the health and lives of residents by “modifying their behavior” and having them drink fewer sugary beverages. And it’s definitely a muscular incentive for new behavior to be sure. The price of soda has nearly doubled overnight.'


Is it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?



"Behave ... conduct yourself in a way pleasing and / or acceptable to the STATE or punishment will be imposed upon you to force you to change...."


REALLY?

Dear easyt65
1. In the case of buying pot, I would actually recommend and prefer that states/districts with this policy
be required to pay for their own health care management of any fallout from marijuana consumption or sales.
Including health care costs both short and longterm, and effects on motivation, work and welfare programs.

As long as local people VOTE on the policies that affect them,
I have no problem with one district voting to require screening for recreational drug use,
with a policy that no such substances be sold or given to people with an addictive or abusive condition.
Or another district voting to invest in setting up localized health care for their residents
so their district DOES take responsibility for their policies and added costs this may incur over time.

If tobacco requires medical research and warnings for health effects, risks and damage,
then the same should apply to marijuana.

2. as for sugars, a similar issue can be addressed for PROCESSED sugars or unnatural sweeteners
that can also be required to come with warnings from the manufacturer.

Again, there is nothing wrong if people within a district or state vote on
policies to ensure profits from sales go into health care for projected costs over time
because of the effects of this unnatural sweeteners/processed sugars.

3. NOTE: As for consumers or voters in these districts/states who DON'T agree,
I would suggest investing in medical research on spiritual healing
as a real cure to addiction and abuse, to match every dollar spent
on researching marijuana. Part of the dynamic of fighting politically
for control of policies would also be addressed through healing INTERNALLY of past conflicts
instead of projecting "power and control issues" EXTERNALLY into media politics and govt.

 

[easyt65]

And those companies do damage to the citizens of the usa.

Arguable...definitely no criminal intent there like there was with cigarette companies.

Should the gov reward good behavior in buying. ?

In cases like this I think the govt should not interfere either way and should just stay out of it.

just about everything today is dangerous, unhealthy, etc....where do you draw the line when deciding to financially punish people for buying food that's 'not good for you'? Under that broad statement the government could tax the crap out of people on just about everything they buy these days.

 

[jillian]

That new soda tax in Seattle is working out about as well as Chicago's - Hot Air

'Another year, another soda tax. This one was shoved through in the city of Seattle by the municipal government. As usual, its purported intent was to improve the health and lives of residents by “modifying their behavior” and having them drink fewer sugary beverages. And it’s definitely a muscular incentive for new behavior to be sure. The price of soda has nearly doubled overnight.'


Is it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?



"Behave ... conduct yourself in a way pleasing and / or acceptable to the STATE or punishment will be imposed upon you to force you to change...."


REALLY?

it absolutely has the power. taxation isn't "punishment" but tax policy has always been used to encourage/discourage behavior.

 

[jillian]

And those companies do damage to the citizens of the usa.

Arguable...definitely no criminal intent there like there was with cigarette companies.

Should the gov reward good behavior in buying. ?

In cases like this I think the govt should not interfere either way and should just stay out of it.

just about everything today is dangerous, unhealthy, etc....where do you draw the line when deciding to financially punish people for buying food that's 'not good for you'? Under that broad statement the government could tax the crap out of people on just about everything they buy these days.

says the person whining about taxes on sugar water

 

[easyt65]

That new soda tax in Seattle is working out about as well as Chicago's - Hot Air

'Another year, another soda tax. This one was shoved through in the city of Seattle by the municipal government. As usual, its purported intent was to improve the health and lives of residents by “modifying their behavior” and having them drink fewer sugary beverages. And it’s definitely a muscular incentive for new behavior to be sure. The price of soda has nearly doubled overnight.'


Is it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?



"Behave ... conduct yourself in a way pleasing and / or acceptable to the STATE or punishment will be imposed upon you to force you to change...."


REALLY?

Dear easyt65
1. In the case of buying pot, I would actually recommend and prefer that states/districts with this policy
be required to pay for their own health care management of any fallout from marijuana consumption or sales.
Including health care costs both short and longterm, and effects on motivation, work and welfare programs.

As long as local people VOTE on the policies that affect them,
I have no problem with one district voting to require screening for recreational drug use,
with a policy that no such substances be sold or given to people with an addictive or abusive condition.
Or another district voting to invest in setting up localized health care for their residents
so their district DOES take responsibility for their policies and added costs this may incur over time.

If tobacco requires medical research and warnings for health effects, risks and damage,
then the same should apply to marijuana.

2. as for sugars, a similar issue can be addressed for PROCESSED sugars or unnatural sweeteners
that can also be required to come with warnings from the manufacturer.

Again, there is nothing wrong if people within a district or state vote on
policies to ensure profits from sales go into health care for projected costs over time
because of the effects of this unnatural sweeteners/processed sugars.

3. NOTE: As for consumers or voters in these districts/states who DON'T agree,
I would suggest investing in medical research on spiritual healing
as a real cure to addiction and abuse, to match every dollar spent
on researching marijuana. Part of the dynamic of fighting politically
for control of policies would also be addressed through healing INTERNALLY of past conflicts
instead of projecting "power and control issues" EXTERNALLY into media politics and govt.

Thank you! That was an extremely well-thought-out and very nicely argued post.

 

[Timmy]

What about encouraging? Why should couples get a tax break for having more and more children ?

 

[easyt65]

What about encouraging? Why should couples get a tax break for having more and more children ?

Talk about 'encouraging'...Why do single mothers get paid for each additional child they irresponsibly have out of wedlock... Good point, though...all good points....

....but we are getting away from the main point about 'soda taxes', though...

 

[Timmy]

Soda taxes are disingenuous and eltitist. Shouldn’t Seattle be taxing frappachinos ? They have more Sugar than sodas .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I heard they tried it in Chicago and they rescinded it due to the fallout over it.

The Cook County Democrats realized this was one thing that could actually cost them their jobs, so they
reversed it. They would have lost tax revenue on "sweetened drinks" and groceries in general as many people were shopping in nearby counties to avoid the idiotic tax.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

s it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?

It is not intended to punish them. It is intended to save them from themselves. It also serves the purpose of keeping health care costs down - costs that we all bear.

 

[petro]

That new soda tax in Seattle is working out about as well as Chicago's - Hot Air

'Another year, another soda tax. This one was shoved through in the city of Seattle by the municipal government. As usual, its purported intent was to improve the health and lives of residents by “modifying their behavior” and having them drink fewer sugary beverages. And it’s definitely a muscular incentive for new behavior to be sure. The price of soda has nearly doubled overnight.'


Is it okay for the government to subject it's citizens to negative financial reinforced behavior modification?



"Behave ... conduct yourself in a way pleasing and / or acceptable to the STATE or punishment will be imposed upon you to force you to change...."


REALLY?

I say YES to your question . But I’m not crazy about the soda thing as I am wh say cigarettes.

Smokers often come down wh major health issues that end up on the taxpayer dime .

So do fat sloppy people, unless you think they are "disabled" .