Do you think the government should tax soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages? (Page 2)


Anonymous wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

Way too much intrusion of

Way too much intrusion of government! Lay off, individual responsibility, rather than government regulations is the way to go. Parenting is being handed over to big government. Numbers of welfare and food stamps recepients rising due to government regulations hurting businesses. Lets get responsible leadership not handouts. Any one who wants more soda will have to just buy another 16 oz cup. Beverage companies will start to lay off even more people. Light bulbs,soda, whats next? anonymous

Anonymous wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

As usual- you think we are

As usual- you think we are all idiots with this stupid question which addresses only one symptom of the real problem. Corporations paid our politicians (campaign money) to make laws that allow them to destroy the planet for profits. (Look at the laws that define a corp. as "a person" and any farm bill since world war II) The feds pay farmers to grow corn which is primarily used for sugar(corn sweetners) and grain fed beef(unnatural food for cows). Resulting in any sugar laden product being far cheaper than fruits and vegetables for us to consume. The result is obesity and heart desease in unprecedented numbers of people. This is wonderful if you're a pharmaceutical company or you practice modern medicine(pharmaceutical based).
Corporations own the world. The Fed passed the clean air and water act. The Dick Cheney's corporation got exempted from it to drill for natural gas(a process that destroys all ground water for miles around each drilling site), just ask the folks in Penn. and Colorado and in our National Parks out west.
But alas - you say we should concern ourselves with whether to tax sugar products? Do you suppose that would recoupe some of the farm subsidies our taxes are paying the farmers to grow the corn sugar that sweetens the soda? Steven Smith

Anonymous wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

what about education....they

what about education....they need a healthy eating program at schools that isn't so general. Kids are told certain foods are bad but it is not really explained why. Infact saying that certain food are good and bad could actually incite bad eating habits and even eating disorders. Kids and adults should be educated about how much fat is in certain foods and teaspoons of sugar there are in there favourite foods and the impacts they have on their physical and mental health when eaten in excess. Serving sizes are often not explained properly...until i read about it i didnt really know how many vegetables or fruit should be included in my diet. The government could start by sending out pamphlets which educate parents on how to cook healthier meals on a budget, simple things like changing to low fat milk, using frozen vegs.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

How dare the government try

How dare the government try to control what we eat. Next it will be what we wear and where we live and how we think! Sounds like Nazi Germany!

Anonymous wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

I too wished to vote but was

I too wished to vote but was not afforded that opportunity. First and foremost, I firmly believe that sugary sodas and other junk food/tobacco products/unhealthy practices should be avoided or very limited at all ages. With that said, it is not, and should not be, the government's responsibility to tell me that. As a parent, it is MY responsibility to teach my children healthy habits just as it is for me to teach them to be a kind, truthful, and loving; I am horrified that anyone would think that legislators should take that responsibility away from me. Lastly, taxation is not the answer for diseases, public health concerns, or bad habits. To think so is playing into the hands of an overreaching government that is taking basic rights away from you simply to raise money, not helping you.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

My answer is no. But educate

My answer is no. But educate people of bad effect of these product and how it becomes an addiction!

Anonymous wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

Another way the Federal

Another way the Federal Government is getting into our lives. If obese people don't care about their health, neither do I. They will still stuff their faces with cakes, cookies, a pound of fries and anything they can get into their mouths. Why pick on soft drinks. Look at the high fructose in so many of our so called energy drinks, canned goods and junk foods.
Government, stay out of our lives. Better to furnish ad campaigns with sports celebrities extolling the virtues of a healthy diet and exercise and the ugliness and serious health complications of obesity.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

Oh sure let them tax all

Oh sure let them tax all foods and count the increase in infant and pre-school starvation. Yeah, that's a rad idea. Oh, but do be sure that they continue to implement laws to support their interests - aka, their investments. How far does this go before someone will take a stand against those who get rich on our children's backs.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

First of all I got on here to

First of all I got on here to vote but found no place to do that. I would have voted NO to taxing soft drinks. Second of all, sugar does not cause ALL Diabetes. I have had diabetes for 25 years and at 95 lbs was not overweight. I drink sugar free soda because there is not a whole lot you can drink as a diabetic. Yes you can drink water and I do that everyday. But sometimes you just want something else to drink. I am sure all of you non diabetics drink many different things but we are limited and not all of us did something to cause this diabetes so lay off of the blame game. After 25 years of drinking diet soda I do not have any ill effects from it either so lets lay off of that too. Now if you want to talk about those who get food stamps not being able to purchase soda or ANY junk food, then you got something there. It is sad that people hear things then pass it on as if it is true. Next time, try doing some research into it first.

bellainge wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

I don't understand how taxing

I don't understand how taxing sweet drinks etc is going to help people be healthier. Our food should be made healthier by the producers. While you think that taxing is a deterient to buying, I disagree. And yes, health care costs go up. The rise of child diabetes is proof that there is something very wrong with the American diet. Get these products off the market. Educate young people on FOOD versus junk. Quit buying the junk! And producers would quit making it. OR- tax the producers to cover the health problems their products are generating.


Anonymous wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

No, I don't think we are at a

No, I don't think we are at a place where we should tax soft drinks. It begs the question why not donuts, cookies, pastries, CEREALS, jams and jelly, ice cream, syrups, sweet tea, candy and cakes.... maybe the better tax would be on the detrimental product SUGAR (and it's various forms).

But then it was the tax on tea that began our first revolution.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

No, I don't agree with a soda

No, I don't agree with a soda tax. I would suggest that we need to stop the farm subsidies for mega farm corn producers. The idea of subsidies going to a "family farm" is long gone, unfortunately, most U.S. farms are part of big agribusiness--who do not need subsidies to produce their product. If subsidies cease, food manufacturers would have to pay more for high fructose corn syrup, passing along the increase to the consumer-- who may then decide on their own to not purchase that particular product. It does not make sense to have government subsidize corn crops and then turn around tax the consumer.

smalleyalice wrote 1 year 50 weeks ago

Taxing on food was once as

Taxing on food was once as usual as taxing on anything else purchased. Most of it is State delegated. However, once Welfare was established, the concept was to help those who could not provide for themselves the basics needed for them and their families. This included items such as toilet paper and basic healthy foods to make a meal. It did not include the junk food.
But manufacturers are also to blame by sweetening all those cereals, and lobbyists manage to include these "junk food" items as necessities. They just made the illnesses more abundant and insurance rates to go up. This is where the "Risk Factor" comes in for insurance premiums.
Yes, the government needs to stop amending all laws that affect all people equally because of those who do not want to take responsibility for their own actions, health and protection.
Sweetened drinks use to be created at home. Tax the manufactured sweetened products. Even with the sugar substitutes, there are health risks.
If you want to risk you health you should pay the price. Not being proactive on your health and life is just lazy and stupid. That's why we have all the health problems we do today.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

Obesity is quickly becoming

Obesity is quickly becoming the U.S.'s number one cause of illness and death. There are high taxes on cigarettes because smoking causes illness and death and the taxes help pay for those healthcare costs. Obesity causes diabetes which in turn causes kidney, heart, and vascular problems. Research has shown that since the high sugary drinks, primarily sweetend by high-fructose corn syrup have been on the market (since the 1970s), obesity rates in the U.S. have sky-rocketed. Our kids will have a shorter life-span than we, simply because of the sugar we have fed them. I certainly agree with another comment about education, but just as with cigarettes, we need a two-prong approach to this problem - taxes on sugary drinks and education in the form of warning labels and public service announcements like they did in the 70s with cigarettes.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

why does our goverment want

why does our goverment want to tax us on junk food,,,,money...
our same goverment allows people on food stamps to purchase soda, candy and other junk food.
that is what needs to stop now. when i was young and we were low on money my mother would by powdered milk for our family. its good for you.
if we are paying for our food and earning our own living we should be allowed to spend our money as we wish. if the goverment is providing this for you, and us as tax payers are footing the bill, there should be
strict guidlines as to what they can buy.
i do not have a problem what so ever helping real people in need, but this is out of control.
i would rather see them able to buy, soap, shampo, paper goods such as tp. than soda.
this is such a scam...what is going on.
people need to jump on the ban wagon and insist on reform for these programs

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

If we are stuck with paying

If we are stuck with paying for Obama-care, Yes tax it!! Then use the revenue to finance diabetes treatment costs under Obama-care. If you are going to eat unhealthy items, you should at least pay for your own health care costs. I don't want to pay for diseases caused by someone's poor eating habits. If you are obese, shame on you. Quit eating junk and start walking. I'm tired of paying for your self-induced health problems!!

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

We are not "free?" Many of

We are not "free?" Many of you are complaining about this lack of "freedom" because we pay taxes. If we didn't pay taxes, we, as Americans, wouldn't have many of the luxuries we are so fond of. If there were not government "governing" us this country would be in literal shambles. There has to be "rules" in order to keep order. These luxuries, such as roads, parks, public schools and/or public events, must be "paid" for and we AS A GROUP pay for them with our tax dollars. If you want to complain about this country and our systems then I suggest you move elsewhere outside of the United States and see how you like it. You might get stoned to death for calling your government "scum" - fancy that!

Taxing on sugary beverages, cigarettes, alcohol, cars, houses, INSURANCE (both vehicle and health) etc are all part of trying to make and keep this country united, healthy and EQUAL.

You can drink a sugary beverage but you should have to pay the "toll" for doing so because such abundant consumption will lead to diabetes or other health related issues just like a smoker.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

I think that education is the

I think that education is the key. We need to hammer away at the consequences of drinking soda and other overly sweetened drinks, but I can't put them in the same category with tobacco products. The damage that cigarettes cause affects others via second hand smoke, so there is collateral damage done by smoking. I don't see that type of damage in the case of drinking sweetened beverages. Let's keep the info coming to enlighten people about the problems these beverages can cause, and let's hope that it sinks in. After all, where do we draw the line on taxation -- it is a slippery slope.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

Less government! Less taxes!

Less government! Less taxes! More individual responsibility!!!

_5565 wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

Gvmt should not tell anyone

Gvmt should not tell anyone what to eat or drink. We are taxed enough already on food & drinks.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

They should not have taxes on

They should not have taxes on any sweet drinks or sweet foods. To even think of doing something like that, is unfair. They have already taken away so much from us, and now they want to take away our drinks and food, too?

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

As far as I'm concern people

As far as I'm concern people makes all kinds of choices for their lives. If they want to eat and drink things that aren't good for their health, then that's their choice, but most of them will pay later. It seem like the government is trying to discourage people from making bad choices for their lives and by taxing them on sweet sugar things and smoking cigarettes, they are hoping that people would really stop.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

We already pay the taxes on

We already pay the taxes on what we buy, why pay more? We are already taxed to death as it is, it's just another way for the govenment to take our money and we have no choice but to pay. If it wasn't made people would not have a choice but to stop consumming it,same goes for alcohol or cigarettes!


Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

The government should not

The government should not tell us what to eat and not eat. That's a choice we need to make for ourselves.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

Absolutely not!! Government

Absolutely not!! Government should stay out of people's lives. Taxing any item that the average consumer uses is taking even more advantage of them, besides earning lower wages or being out of work, now the local government is going to tax anything that they may want to eat or drink. Instead why doesn't government ask the manufacturers to produce healthier products for consumption by the average consumer.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

It´s the sugar that is

It´s the sugar that is killing us. It´s the main cause of many cancers. To be honest I don´t buy soda. And I try to keep off sweentened drinks. Just think twice when you drink another soda. Your drinking 10 tablespoons of sugar per can. Think health wise.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

if we are putting a "sin tax"

if we are putting a "sin tax" on soda because diabetes is too expensive to treat, let's also close down all fast food restaraunts, ice cream parlors, Starbucks, and donut shops because they are also causing high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels as well. At what polnt do we as Humans start to wake up and take responsibilities for our own health. Soda does not cause diabetes video games and watching tv does.

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

I don't think taxing

I don't think taxing something that we can live without is a bad idea. A tax does not mean that you can no longer obtain the sugary drinks. It's kind of like toll roads, if you want to drive a fast, shorter route on a nice smooth road, in some states you pay a toll. On the other hand, if you want to take a rough, longer route that's toll free, you can. Likewise with the sugary drinks, if you want to have one, go ahead, but it may cost you more than plain tap water.

Glenn Lemke wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

No tax on soda? Then repeal

No tax on soda? Then repeal all the taxes on alcoholic beverages!

Anonymous wrote 1 year 51 weeks ago

Heavily tax alcohol and

Heavily tax alcohol and tobacco!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote 2 years 3 hours ago

Why dont we just stop making

Why dont we just stop making soda.... And cigarettes and alcohol for that matter.
You don't need it to live is just a disgusting human habit that causes more harm than good...
But of course age politicians make Money of we are sick so I guess this whole debate/poll is uses...

silverbirch332 wrote 2 years 5 hours ago

Sorry folks, but all this

Sorry folks, but all this yammering about "freedom" is nonsense. Nobody is taking away anyone's freedom do anything, they are just asking them to pay for behaviors which cause serious expense to society at large. So fine. You want to smoke, do it, but pay for it. Same thing with sugars. Diabetes is no joke, and treating it is extremely expensive, at least in the later stages of the disease. We should also tax the advertisers of these products.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 6 hours ago

All the government want is

All the government want is money money money, they want to take all our money. You basically have to pay to live on this earth. They are scum.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 20 hours ago

Absolutely NOT. The

Absolutely NOT. The government should look in the mirror & cut exspenses there first and also get your feet off my furniture - try and cultivate some manners if possible.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 23 hours ago

The FDA is supposed to be

The FDA is supposed to be "protecting the public health by assuring that foods are safe, wholesome, sanitary and properly labeled." If our government approved sodas as being safe, I do not see any reason they should impose additional taxes because they are "bad for us." Almost everything is "bad for us." We have individual responsibility to eat/ drink things in moderation. It is not the government's job to decide what we consume.

_5047 wrote 2 years 23 hours ago

No! It is insanity to keep

No! It is insanity to keep adding tax upon taxes on everything. Truth is people will buy what they really want no matter what and whether it is healthy or not.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 1 day ago

Yes, as a healthcare worker,

Yes, as a healthcare worker, I've seen the damage caused to teeth, kidneys, sugar levels and on and on from the sugary drinks people consume. It's not the only culprit, but it's a big one. Anything that will slow down the consumption of such foods is well worth the effort.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 1 day ago

sooo, the government, ussr,

sooo, the government, ussr, oh excuse me ussa, wants another tax? why not, they tax everything we do, say, breathe, or eat, so that 80% of the money is controlled by the 20%of the wealthy and government, and the other minority 20% of the money is controlled by 80% of the people, which we fight and struggle to keep, while the rich government 20% are constantly thinking how they can get the other 20% of the $$$ away from the little people, that have the most say. the voting public, yes the sugar company, a commodoty on the stock market already, wants a bigger hand in the pocket of the people, do you think the government doesn't already give the sugar conglomerates kickbacks and "tax breaks" already//???
think about it??? the stock market??? who owns it , who runs it, that controls the food, the water, the air we breathe?? sugar is in everything, i mean everything we eat, the government should control the sugar company, not the consumers, but the sugar companies and food companies that put so many additives in food and sugar is one of them consumers have a right to eat what they want and have the control of what sugar they , also with salt, want in their foods, not food jockeys

Anonymous wrote 2 years 1 day ago

tax away i smoke and get

tax away i smoke and get taxed to death for it,i don't drink soda.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 1 day ago

If i hear the government is

If i hear the government is going to tax people again for something they really do not care about, aka sugar obesity, etc, they might as well tax air, food, water, everything that people really do need, becuause then they would be sure to get to those that do care about how they live, which is most of us, they only want to target the few who do not care, or who do not pay taxes, teenagers, however oh year, they do tax air water and food, oh well, will never win with so much government, just like the ussr, good old usa.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 1 day ago

Yes yes yes. There are too

Yes yes yes. There are too many obese people around. Maybe this would help cut down their intake of too many sweets.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 1 day ago

There are too many taxes

There are too many taxes already - the government shouldn't be involved. Anonymous

Anonymous wrote 2 years 1 day ago

No, absolutely not. We

No, absolutely not. We already pay a sales tax. Our local and national governments are trying to find more ways to tax its subjects in order to correct their mistakes. Ignorance says “yes”, let’s teach “them” a lesson because sugar is bad for you, but in the end we all pay, the rich, the shrinking middle class, and the poor. Freedom means getting involved in ones own education, self evaluation, developing self awareness and healthier eating habits which are keys to living better. No one should be telling us how to live, what to buy or what we should and should not eat. Our country was created to get away from unfair taxation. The more we give in to governmental control, the significance of the word “freedoms” begins to diminish. We are becoming a nation of followers, not leaders. The attitude is, “A new tax, sure why not. I don’t have this problem.” or “I don’t care. Let someone else worry about it.” What’s next? Where will it stop? Is taxation the only solution?

— Anonymous

Anonymous wrote 2 years 1 day ago

No more nanny taxes.

No more nanny taxes.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 2 days ago



Anonymous wrote 2 years 2 days ago

I don't think taxing is the

I don't think taxing is the answer to eating healthy. People need to to educated on making wise food choices. Once educated, it still comes down to "choice". Do we want to live healthy and fit lives? So will, some won't. After all, it didn't stop people from smoking.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 2 days ago

This is just one more example

This is just one more example that makes me wonder if the people who are saying yes to a government grab on our choices have considered that we in the United States have a Constitution. We are entitled to make decisions for ourselves. Maybe more education in government and a better understanding of government's role would clarify the differences between being a citizen in the United States versus a country like Also, consider that if we agree government can create a tax to bring in more money, or to control the consumption of our food and drink, YOU are also saying that down the road you'll be fine when they begin telling you what you must consume-say brussell sprouts three times a week, onions daily, and no more coffee or cheese. Once you open the door and give up a right, government will not close it but will, instead see this as another reason everyone needs them to make decisions for a supposedly free population.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 2 days ago

This would be another tax

This would be another tax that hits poorer people disproportionately. If you figure the amount you spend on these products as a percentage of your disposable income, and then figure the percentage it would be for someone bringing home, say, $250k a year, you can see how unfair this sort of tax is. This is already the case for all sales taxes, so don't make it worse.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 2 days ago

The government should tax the

The government should tax the sale and production of artificially sweetened beverages, not their consumption.

Anonymous wrote 2 years 2 days ago

Absolutely not!!!!!! The

Absolutely not!!!!!! The government is way out of hand on what they think they can tell us to do. This is America.......Freedom of choices, speech remember!!!!!!! We may eat too much of this stuff, but it is none of their business if we do...........Anonymous

Connect With Us

20 minute dinner recipes

EatingWell Magazine

more smart savings
20 minute dinner recipes
Get a full year of EatingWell magazine.
World Wide Web Health Award Winner Web Award Winner World Wide Web Health Award Winner Interactive Media Award Winner