Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2013, 07:26 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
Tax them, but taxation should not exceed the cost to the state of the product. For example, if we can reasonably determine that $30 million dollars per year are expended by government on health care due to soft-drink-induced diabetes then the total taxation should not exceed $30 million per year.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 08:27 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(15-05-2013 04:03 AM)shiranl Wrote:  It won't help. I assume you want it to be taxed in order for people to stop using it....well, when ever in history taxing something prevented from people to use it? Ciggarettes and alcohol are maybe the highest taxed consume products, and it doesn't prevent from people to use them. The only solution is education, education and some more education.


Cigarette companies in the U.S. are not allowed to have tv advertisements anymore, this could be done with soft drinks as well. Since the crackdown on Tobacco in the U.S. and smoking bans in most buildings including bars, fewer people smoke than in the past. Taxation would also allow the government to have revenue for treatment of the costs of healthcare.

Education alone would mean more spending by the government, Corporations spend billions of dollars a year just to advertise their products, it would be a massive waste of government resources to even attempt to compete with that type of advertisement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I and I's post
15-05-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
banning advertisement is a form of education. I don't know the law here in Israel regarding advertising- but smoking is prohibited in practicly every public area.
There is no instant and cheap solution to this. Drinking soft drinks and eating junk food is inseparate part of Western society. you want to eradicate it- taxing won't help, it never did. Maybe they'll consume it less- but they'll still consume it. More over, the biggest consumers of junk food are children, who usually don't have any sense of understanding money.

Education alone is the only solution, one that definitley works. More over- educating children is very easy because they absorb information very quickly, and children- in their turn- educate their own parents. It happens, it works and really all what you need to do is having the Education Office declaring a year of education for eating healthy and give the children do assignments and projects about it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 10:46 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(15-05-2013 09:29 AM)shiranl Wrote:  banning advertisement is a form of education. I don't know the law here in Israel regarding advertising- but smoking is prohibited in practicly every public area.
There is no instant and cheap solution to this. Drinking soft drinks and eating junk food is inseparate part of Western society. you want to eradicate it- taxing won't help, it never did. Maybe they'll consume it less- but they'll still consume it. More over, the biggest consumers of junk food are children, who usually don't have any sense of understanding money.

Education alone is the only solution, one that definitley works. More over- educating children is very easy because they absorb information very quickly, and children- in their turn- educate their own parents. It happens, it works and really all what you need to do is having the Education Office declaring a year of education for eating healthy and give the children do assignments and projects about it.

Junk food can certainly be banned in public schools. Education alone like educating kids on healthy eating alone won't work. Children need guidance from adults to know what choices are best or not best, informing children then letting them decide won't work because obviously it doesn't work on adults either. Humans are driven by impulses not by rational logical thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 11:31 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
That where you are wrong. You underestimate children's intelligence and sensetivity. I know it works because I've seen it work. Israelis used to be very dirty- they didn't clean up after them and they used to throw their garbage on the floor- then the education system did something about it, saving the enviroment and recycling went into the syllabus of elementry schools- and walla! few years latter I was surprised to read an article that said all the national parks were relatively clean the day after Israel's Independece celebration, when that used to be one of the most unclean days of the year. How did it worked if only the children learned that saving the enviroment is important? Easy. They learned in class that throwing garbage on the floor is wrong, they sow their parents do it, they tell them off in their childish way, the parents felled ashamed and never did it again- because when your child realize you did something wrong and tells you that, you don't want it ever happening again.

Education works. You just need to do it right.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 11:40 AM
Re: RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(15-05-2013 11:31 AM)shiranl Wrote:  That where you are wrong. You underestimate children's intelligence and sensetivity. I know it works because I've seen it work. Israelis used to be very dirty- they didn't clean up after them and they used to throw their garbage on the floor- then the education system did something about it, saving the enviroment and recycling went into the syllabus of elementry schools- and walla! few years latter I was surprised to read an article that said all the national parks were relatively clean the day after Israel's Independece celebration, when that used to be one of the most unclean days of the year. How did it worked if only the children learned that saving the enviroment is important? Easy. They learned in class that throwing garbage on the floor is wrong, they sow their parents do it, they tell them off in their childish way, the parents felled ashamed and never did it again- because when your child realize you did something wrong and tells you that, you don't want it ever happening again.

Education works. You just need to do it right.

I fail to see what part is "where he is wrong" to you.

You're both saying the same thing. He said education isn't just enough, they need parental guidance. You said Israel got cleaned up by education and kids learning by seeing adults and parents cleaning.

the only thing he said different was that educating adults doesn't work well... But you didn't respond to that argument.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 11:46 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(15-05-2013 11:40 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(15-05-2013 11:31 AM)shiranl Wrote:  That where you are wrong. You underestimate children's intelligence and sensetivity. I know it works because I've seen it work. Israelis used to be very dirty- they didn't clean up after them and they used to throw their garbage on the floor- then the education system did something about it, saving the enviroment and recycling went into the syllabus of elementry schools- and walla! few years latter I was surprised to read an article that said all the national parks were relatively clean the day after Israel's Independece celebration, when that used to be one of the most unclean days of the year. How did it worked if only the children learned that saving the enviroment is important? Easy. They learned in class that throwing garbage on the floor is wrong, they sow their parents do it, they tell them off in their childish way, the parents felled ashamed and never did it again- because when your child realize you did something wrong and tells you that, you don't want it ever happening again.

Education works. You just need to do it right.

I fail to see what part is "where he is wrong" to you.

You're both saying the same thing. He said education isn't just enough, they need parental guidance. You said Israel got cleaned up by education and kids learning by seeing adults and parents cleaning.

the only thing he said different was that educating adults doesn't work well... But you didn't respond to that argument.

Read again. I said kids learned in school about saving the enviroment. afterwards, they sow their parent not saving the enviroment. the kids told their parents they are doing something wrong. parents never throw their garbage on the floor again. kids were educated at school and then those kids educated their parents. I&I said education isn't enough, I say education is indeed enough.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 12:20 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(15-05-2013 12:50 AM)I and I Wrote:  How is government regulating what we don't consume any worse than corporations telling us what we should consume through spending millions of dollars on advertisements and marketing schemes? Aren't corporations too playing a part in controlling our lives by mass marketing and monopoly?

Businesses, whether they are corps or not, respond to market demand. They offer shitty, unhealthy drinks to Americans because Americans want to buy and consume shitty, unhealthy drinks. If enough Americans expressed a desire to have their balls smashed with a bearing press, some entrepreneur would design a bearing press that made the task faster and easier and then he would get rich selling Americans that which they desire.

All of this is done voluntarily. Coke doesn't come to your house and force you to drink its shitty cola. It doesn't deny you the right to buy and consume iced tea. It doesn't tell you how much coke to drink, where to drink it or what to eat with it when you drink it. Coke simply puts a product on the market and asks you to try it.

The state uses punitive, violent means to inflict the opinions of some people onto others. This is not voluntary and it is not desired by Americans writ large. If it were, there would be no need of the state.

If the people who call themselves the state are so god damned worried about spending money on the healthcare of those who drink shitty, unhealthy drinks, then perhaps they should put down their fucking guns and get out of people's lives.

That's the difference... governments brandishing guns at the expense of others and business owners running ads on tv at their own expense. What seems more rational to you?

Regarding monopolies, they very rarely occur in free markets and when they do, they do so because they are providing a product that almost everyone wants to buy from them. Statist monopolies occur as a result of corrupt business owners colluding with corrupt legislators for the purposes of raising the barriers to entry in an industry, effectively eliminating through force, most fair and just competition.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 12:31 PM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(15-05-2013 12:20 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(15-05-2013 12:50 AM)I and I Wrote:  How is government regulating what we don't consume any worse than corporations telling us what we should consume through spending millions of dollars on advertisements and marketing schemes? Aren't corporations too playing a part in controlling our lives by mass marketing and monopoly?

Businesses, whether they are corps or not, respond to market demand. They offer shitty, unhealthy drinks to Americans because Americans want to buy and consume shitty, unhealthy drinks. If enough Americans expressed a desire to have their balls smashed with a bearing press, some entrepreneur would design a bearing press that made the task faster and easier and then he would get rich selling Americans that which they desire.

All of this is done voluntarily. Coke doesn't come to your house and force you to drink its shitty cola. It doesn't deny you the right to buy and consume iced tea. It doesn't tell you how much coke to drink, where to drink it or what to eat with it when you drink it. Coke simply puts a product on the market and asks you to try it.

The state uses punitive, violent means to inflict the opinions of some people onto others. This is not voluntary and it is not desired by Americans writ large. If it were, there would be no need of the state.

If the people who call themselves the state are so god damned worried about spending money on the healthcare of those who drink shitty, unhealthy drinks, then perhaps they should put down their fucking guns and get out of people's lives.

That's the difference... governments brandishing guns at the expense of others and business owners running ads on tv at their own expense. What seems more rational to you?

Regarding monopolies, they very rarely occur in free markets and when they do, they do so because they are providing a product that almost everyone wants to buy from them. Statist monopolies occur as a result of corrupt business owners colluding with corrupt legislators for the purposes of raising the barriers to entry in an industry, effectively eliminating through force, most fair and just competition.

If one examines neocapitalist modernist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject subsemantic situationism or conclude that truth may be used to reinforce sexism. McElwaine implies that we have to choose between neotextual structuralist theory and textual predialectic theory. But Baudrillard uses the term ‘neocapitalist modernist theory’ to denote the role of the reader as artist.

The characteristic theme of la Tournier’s critique of neotextual structuralist theory is the difference between reality and society. The subject is interpolated into a subsemantic situationism that includes truth as a reality. In a sense, the destruction/creation distinction prevalent in Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction emerges.

If one examines neotextual structuralist theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept subsemantic situationism or conclude that the establishment is capable of significant form, given that art is interchangeable with narrativity. The main theme of the works of Tarantino is the economy, and eventually the meaninglessness, of constructive sexual identity. Thus, if neotextual structuralist theory holds, the works of Tarantino are reminiscent of Mapplethorpe.

Debord uses the term ‘Sartreist existentialism’ to denote not discourse, but postdiscourse. It could be said that d’Erlette holds that we have to choose between neotextual structuralist theory and Lyotardist narrative.

Any number of theories concerning postconstructive sublimation may be found. In a sense, the premise of neotextual structuralist theory suggests that truth is used to exploit minorities.

The rubicon, and therefore the absurdity, of neocapitalist modernist theory which is a central theme of Tarantino’s Four Rooms is also evident in statism, although in a more capitalist sense. However, Lacan suggests the use of neotextual structuralist theory to deconstruct the status quo.

The characteristic theme of Dietrich’s model of Lyotardist narrative is the role of the participant as writer. In a sense, Sontag uses the term ‘neotextual structuralist theory’ to denote not theory as such, but neotheory.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2013, 01:25 AM
RE: Should soft drinks be banned or heavily taxed?
(15-05-2013 12:20 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(15-05-2013 12:50 AM)I and I Wrote:  How is government regulating what we don't consume any worse than corporations telling us what we should consume through spending millions of dollars on advertisements and marketing schemes? Aren't corporations too playing a part in controlling our lives by mass marketing and monopoly?

Businesses, whether they are corps or not, respond to market demand. They offer shitty, unhealthy drinks to Americans because Americans want to buy and consume shitty, unhealthy drinks. If enough Americans expressed a desire to have their balls smashed with a bearing press, some entrepreneur would design a bearing press that made the task faster and easier and then he would get rich selling Americans that which they desire.

All of this is done voluntarily. Coke doesn't come to your house and force you to drink its shitty cola. It doesn't deny you the right to buy and consume iced tea. It doesn't tell you how much coke to drink, where to drink it or what to eat with it when you drink it. Coke simply puts a product on the market and asks you to try it.

The state uses punitive, violent means to inflict the opinions of some people onto others. This is not voluntary and it is not desired by Americans writ large. If it were, there would be no need of the state.

If the people who call themselves the state are so god damned worried about spending money on the healthcare of those who drink shitty, unhealthy drinks, then perhaps they should put down their fucking guns and get out of people's lives.

That's the difference... governments brandishing guns at the expense of others and business owners running ads on tv at their own expense. What seems more rational to you?

Regarding monopolies, they very rarely occur in free markets and when they do, they do so because they are providing a product that almost everyone wants to buy from them. Statist monopolies occur as a result of corrupt business owners colluding with corrupt legislators for the purposes of raising the barriers to entry in an industry, effectively eliminating through force, most fair and just competition.


I don't understand your position. if the capitalist government being in peoples lives are bad, then so are the corporations. Humans are driven by desires and are followers, advertisement execs know this and they spend billions of dollar coming up with ways to get us to consume their product. Shouldn't this type of control and manipulation by corporations stop as well?

Your claims about the capitalist state using violence is true, however most of this violence is done on the behalf of corporate interests, and lobbied for by corporate interests. You seem to think that corporations and government are two distinct entities that are pitted against each other. I see them as basically being one in the same, different factions and working together.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I and I's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: