Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
I AM NOT THAT GUY

A Union Against The Fat Tax

49 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Timeline

While one segment of organized labor is actively supporting Gov. David Paterson's proposed tax on sugary beverages, one union has stepped up its efforts to make sure the measure remains as dead as it currently appears in both houses of the Legislature.

UFCW Local 1500 plans to soon start running the ad that appears after the jump. Copies have already been mailed to every member of the Senate and Assembly - neither of which included the so-called "fat tax" in the one-house budget resolutions passed in recent days.

The fine print, which is a little hard to see here, reads:

We're all tired of being taxed by the government. Still, not all taxes are created equal. A Regressive Tax (the kind that hurts lower income people much more than wealthier people) is one of the worst. Any tax on sugar-based products will hurt thousands of New Yorkers in neighborhoods with meager purchasing options. In these communities, people are forced to shop in smaller stores, such as bodgeas and limited-product markets where they have fewer healthy alternatives. The sugar tax will force people to pay more simply because they have no other choice."

Local 1500 represents supermarket workers. It stands to reason that some shoppers will change their purchasing habits if the fat tax is enacted, which could impact the bottom lines at markets. If the employers suffer, the employees will eventually suffer, too.

The powerful health care workers union, SEIU/1199, has teamed up with its employer partner, GNYHA, to support the fat tax, which Paterson and other backers say will help generate revenue that could be used to offset health care spending cuts.

SEIU/1199 and GNYHA are members of the Alliance for a Healthier New York, which has been running a very slick pro-fat tax ad campaign.

State DOH spokeswoman Diane Mathis sent the following statement:

"The claim that people who work in the food and beverage industry will lose jobs as a result of the soda tax is complete hogwash. Unless there is going to be an epidemic of dehydration, even with a soda tax New Yorkers are going to continue to drink beverages, they are just going to switch to lower-cost diet sodas that are NOT taxed but which are produced, bottled, distributed and sold by the same businesses that sell the sugary sodas. PepsiCi, Coco Cola and Snapple together produce over 115 zero or low calorie beverages which would not be affected by the tax."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/03/a-union-against-the-fat-tax.html#ixzz0jro1fy8V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic scare tactics.

Heard that before the minimum wage laws were enacted. Heard it before the Health laws were changed...

I expect to hear it every time any change is being debated...

History shows its all smoke and mirrors aimed at protecting somebody's money...


kp7cnfvctuzu.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: United Kingdom
Timeline

The sugar tax will force people to pay more simply because they have no other choice.

What a load of #######! :lol:

Poor lower income people and their soda drinking habits. :crying:

How about drinking *water* instead of sugary beverages for a choice?


biden_pinhead.jpgspace.gifrolling-stones-american-flag-tongue.jpgspace.gifinside-geico.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Peru
Timeline

What a load of #######! :lol:

Poor lower income people and their soda drinking habits. :crying:

How about drinking *water* instead of sugary beverages for a choice?

:thumbs:

but don't you know, there is no water in poor neighborhoods. :wacko:


205656_848198845714_16320940_41282447_7410167_n-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:thumbs:

but don't you know, there is no water in poor neighborhoods. :wacko:

I have to agree. Soda should never be viewed as a thirst slaking necessity. It's a treat and almost anyone can afford to buy a treat if it's that, a 'once in a while' purchase.


Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they going to start taxing milk?

How is that relevant? Milk is not a frivolous and unnecessary part of the diet, soda is.

Candy should be taxed, if it isn't already ;)


Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Afghanistan
Timeline

How is that relevant? Milk is not a frivolous and unnecessary part of the diet, soda is.

Candy should be taxed, if it isn't already ;)

Its has similar calorie content to soda unless its 2% or skim. What I'm getting at is....should the government be deciding what is frivolous and unnecessary in our diets? I think we could have a very simple diet of rice/veg. with water and milk, the government could potentially tax everything else...thats why I'm generally against "nanny" taxing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Also called the Twinkie tax, the fat tax concept was pioneered by Kelly D. Brownell, a professor of psychology at Yale University, who wrote about it in the New York Times in 1994. Dr. Brownell outlined two proposals, the first of which suggested a 7 percent to 10 percent tax on unhealthy foods. The tax revenue would then subsidize the sale of healthy foods. The tax would apply to broad types of foods or target certain fatty foods. Brownell's alternate proposal stated that a lesser tax could be used to fund public programs promoting healthy and responsible eating.

Researchers at Oxford University and Nottingham University claim that a 17.5 percent Value Added Tax (VAT) on unhealthy food could save up to 3,200 lives a year. The tax would effectively save lives by reducing demands for unhealthy foods, consequently reducing occurrences of serious complications from obesity, such as heart attacks and diabetes.

In determining how demand would be lowered, the researchers calculated how higher prices on unhealthy foods would affect the market for those products. The scientists created scenarios involving three different potential methods of taxation. The first model taxed only foods loaded with saturated fat. But this taxation method simply caused consumers to switch to other salty, unhealthy foods, which resulted in even more severe health consequences. It also increased food costs for the average family by 3.2 percent [source: Guardian Unlimited].

The second taxation scheme assigned various foods a rating, called an SSCg3d score. Researchers rated foods based on their levels of eight nutrients. Very healthy foods had negative scores, while unhealthy foods had positive scores. Foods with scores more than +8 would be taxed, resulting in an estimated 2,300 lives saved but a 4 percent increase in food costs [source: Guardian Unlimited].

The third method outlined by the researchers spread the tax among a wide variety of foods, potentially taxing 44.5 percent of all food costs. This tax saved an estimated 3,200 lives but raised food expenditures by 4.6 percent [source: Reuters].

Besides encouraging consumers to purchase healthier foods, one researcher said -- as Dr. Brownell once suggested -- that the VAT could be used to subsidize the cost of more expensive, healthy foods. Some foods in Britain, such as ice cream and potato chips, are already subject to a VAT. In the United States, several states levy small taxes on soft drinks. California, Maine and Maryland all had fat taxes that were later repealed. A fat tax could be as small as one cent for a soda, but given the United States' fast food consumption, even a miniscule tax could generate hundreds of millions of dollars.

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

Its has similar calorie content to soda unless its 2% or skim. What I'm getting at is....should the government be deciding what is frivolous and unnecessary in our diets? I think we could have a very simple diet of rice/veg. with water and milk, the government could potentially tax everything else...thats why I'm generally against "nanny" taxing.

Milk contains nutrients and minerals that one needs. Soda does not. It's really simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Peru
Timeline

Milk contains nutrients and minerals that one needs. Soda does not. It's really simple.

But soda has other cool uses :star:

1. In many states the highway patrol carries two gallons of Coke in the trunk to remove blood from the highway after a car accident.

2. You can put a T-bone steak in a bowl of coke and it will be gone in two days.

3. To clean a toilet: Pour a can of Coca-Cola into the toilet bowl... Let the "real thing" sit for one hour, then flush clean.

4. The citric acid in Coke removes stains from vitreous china.

5. To remove rust spots from chrome car bumpers: Rub the bumper with a crumpled-up piece of Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil dipped in Coca-Cola.

6. To clean corrosion from car battery terminals: Pour a can of Coca-Cola over the terminals to bubble away corrosion.

7. To loosen a rusted bolt: Applying a cloth soaked in Coca-Cola to the rusted bolt for several minutes.

8. To remove grease from clothes: Empty a can of coke into a load of greasy clothes, add detergent, and run through a regular cycle. The Coca-Cola will help loosen grease stains. It will also clean road haze from your windshield.

9.The active ingredient in Coke is phosphoric acid. Its pH is 2.8. It will dissolve a nail in about 4 days.

10.To carry Coca Cola syrup (the concentrate) the commercial truck must use the Hazardous material place cards reserved for Highly Corrosive materials.

11.The distributors of coke have been using it to clean the engines of their trucks for about 20 years!


205656_848198845714_16320940_41282447_7410167_n-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

But soda has other cool uses :star:

1. In many states the highway patrol carries two gallons of Coke in the trunk to remove blood from the highway after a car accident.

2. You can put a T-bone steak in a bowl of coke and it will be gone in two days.

3. To clean a toilet: Pour a can of Coca-Cola into the toilet bowl... Let the "real thing" sit for one hour, then flush clean.

4. The citric acid in Coke removes stains from vitreous china.

5. To remove rust spots from chrome car bumpers: Rub the bumper with a crumpled-up piece of Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil dipped in Coca-Cola.

6. To clean corrosion from car battery terminals: Pour a can of Coca-Cola over the terminals to bubble away corrosion.

7. To loosen a rusted bolt: Applying a cloth soaked in Coca-Cola to the rusted bolt for several minutes.

8. To remove grease from clothes: Empty a can of coke into a load of greasy clothes, add detergent, and run through a regular cycle. The Coca-Cola will help loosen grease stains. It will also clean road haze from your windshield.

9.The active ingredient in Coke is phosphoric acid. Its pH is 2.8. It will dissolve a nail in about 4 days.

10.To carry Coca Cola syrup (the concentrate) the commercial truck must use the Hazardous material place cards reserved for Highly Corrosive materials.

11.The distributors of coke have been using it to clean the engines of their trucks for about 20 years!

Which begs the question: Why do they stack it in the food section? It would seem to be more appropriate to be offered in the cleaner and hardware sections of the supermarket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (apr) Country: Peru
Timeline

Which begs the question: Why do they stack it in the food section? It would seem to be more appropriate to be offered in the cleaner and hardware sections of the supermarket.

'cause it goes well with a burger and fries :)

I seriously wouldn't have a problem paying tax on soda.


205656_848198845714_16320940_41282447_7410167_n-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...