December 20, 2008

Soft Drink Tax?

While doing my Spark Points this morning, I came across this article about a possible tax that might be coming to New Yorkers. Since New York is facing a $15 billion deficit this year and next, New York Governor David Paterson unveiled a plan that would bring $404 million to the state. Seems like quite a big chunk of cash, but he has a $121 billion budget for 2009 and is pushing this soft drink tax as an “obesity tax” to help pay for some of this budget.

His proposal puts a tax of about 15% on non-diet drinks. This includes soda and all sugary drinks containing less than 70% fruit juice. Drinks not affected by this tax include milk, real fruit juice, diet soda and bottled water.

In my opinion, the governor should trim down his state budget before imposing new taxes on the people. I always vote against raising taxes. If the people get to vote on this, hopefully they will do the same.

Calling this an “obesity tax” is absurd and offensive. Not everyone who drinks soda is obese and surely not all who are drink regular soda. How very unpolitically correct to call it such a thing.

What are your thoughts on this proposed new tax?


Jen said...

I find this tax offensive too!

Sara said...

Trimming the budget means cutting out needed services for schools, medical services and the poor (whose numbers are increasing because of the economy). The money has to come from somewhere. It's better to raise taxes on an optional item like Soda than on everything. You can always just order apple juice instead of a coke.

Lucy said...

Oh, my goodness the vicious cycle of raising taxes. It is sad how the politicians are trying to make it look better by making it out to be a health issue. "Gee, let's raise the taxes on something you shouldn't drink." Isn't it great how the government is now telling us what to eat and drink. But, what is worse is the fallout. Think this through, if you raise taxes on a product that people will eventually not buy, what do companies do? You got it, they have to layoff employees. Oh, but I guess that is o.k. with Sara because hey, they can go on unemployment and the government can tax something else to keep covering the cost.