This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on January 18, 2011 6:34 PM. The previous post in this blog was Calling John Kroger. The next post in this blog is Nike, Columbia Sportswear make list of shame. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Heard in Salem: sales tax on soda

Having enflamed the cyclists with his proposal to ban toddlers in bicycle trailers, now Oregon Rep. Mitch Greenlick wants a 6-cent sales tax on a can of soda. Ah, where the nanny state meets the PERS black hole. Perfect, Mitch! Got any other lead balloons with ya?

Comments (16)

Soon they will be trying to tax Blog hits.

But then, with 1600+ Bills being proposed I suppose that may already be in the works.

Small sugar compared to another proposal for a real estate transfer tax.

Here is the reference to the bill allowing the tax by all levels of government, it seems: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measures/hb2500.dir/hb2518.intro.html

I actually think a real estate transfer tax, which the average person would probably pay once or twice in a lifetime, is overdue. Securities transfer taxes, too. But let the little guy have a soda, for crying out loud.

Rather than debate which tax(es) to smack the population with, why not focus on identifying and cutting wasteful government spending?

Yet another reason to shop at Walmart IN VANCOUVER.

* No bottle tax
* No give up identity theft ID to buy spray paint.
* Plastic bags routine.
(no sales tax with Oregon ID)


Didn't the intelligent voters of Oregon just approve a measure to allow the legislature to work for us full time and every year?

I hope they use recycled lead balloons, it's the green thing to do. We do have a recycled Governor.

Course I'm all for it. If there's any one root cause that connects many of our social ills and budget problems, sugar and liquid sugar (HFCS) are top contenders.

A good tax system taxes what we want Less of instead Of what we want more of. Oregons tax system Taxes exactly those things we claim to want more of ( savings, earnings, labor, investment) while giving a free ride to the things That are bankrupting us.

My son collects disability support from SSDI/SSI and is on food stamps. He regularly buys cases of soda with the food stamps. He has gained weight and the sugar worsens his mental, physical and dental health. If the Food Stamp (now called SNAP - Supplemental Nutritional... something or other) didn't allow purchase of soda or candy (he buys gobs of that too -- and chips!) -- he would be better off. I figure that he spends about 30% of his total food budget on junk food alone. Why? Because he can. I don't think a 6% tax on sugar will deter him -- it will only mean that less of his money will go towards better food.

A 6-cent tax is not big enough to be a deterrent, so any talk of this being a strike for a healthier society is bunk. The food stamp problem is a federal issue, not one that can be remedied at the state level - I just wanted to point out that the tax on soda won't stop anyone or limit soda purchases.

This is a money-making tax, and not in any way health related. I wish the folks in Salem would do the right thing for the right reasons and be honest about the rest.

Tax on sugar, bad idea. Tax on real estate or securities transfer, bad idea. Here is a good idea - the legislature has 180 days to pass a budget, no tax increases, no new taxes, just live with what we got. At the end of 180 days, any programs not funded get whatever funds were allocated to the legislature. So if they can't balance the budget, they don't get paid. If THAT isn't enough money, then the Governor (even that worthless retread that we just voted back in) gets to start slashing until the budget IS balanced. Just my two cents.

My son collects disability support from SSDI/SSI and is on food stamps

If someone is essentially a ward of the state, receiving state (federal) benefits to cover one's food, housing and healthcare, then I'm all for restricting what they can and cannot buy. Those entitlements are not rights, the are privileges, and they can choose NOT to accept them (of course there are reprecussions of doing so.) And I object to someone on food stamps (SNAP) being able to buy questionable items like pop.

But, if you use your own money (rather than a government handout), what business does the government have in deciding what you can and can't buy, if it doesn't impact or affect anyone else? Buying a can of pop doesn't impact anyone else but the person buying it. It's not like alcohol (drunkenness has all sorts of social ills including drunk driving, assualts, domestic violence), smoking (second hand smoke forces others standing nearby to take in the carcinogens), guns (guns can be used to kill people), or other items. Pop doesn't impact anyone else, and is not inherently dangerous.

But, if you get government money to feed you, then the government has every right to expect that their money is well-spent - on healthy food. Get food stamps? Eat right. Don't like it? Buy your own food.

A good tax system taxes what we want Less of instead Of what we want more of.

Fantastic. I'm going to ask my Representative to draft a bill to tax any legislator who files a new tax bill.

I think we would save more money for the state if we just banned Greenlick from proposing stupid bills......

'Soon they will be trying to tax Blog hits.'

Silly me...when I first read this I thought it said bong hits......

Hmmmm...I should be careful. I might give Grrenlick an idea....

Washington County has had a real estate transfer tax for some time.

I support a soda tax. I actually support a tax on any product that uses high-fructose corn syrup. I figure if we're going to subsidize corn through the Farm Bill and thus make it insanely cheap to produce foods with high fat content, then we might as well tax it on the other side to make it a bit more even. Maybe then a bag of potato chips won't cost less than an apple.

Clicky Web Analytics