Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

New York - Health officials To Push For Statewide Soda Tax, Bloomberg Backs Idea

Published on:   March 7, 2010 12:40 PM
News Source: AP /  NY Daily News
Change text size Text Size  
Bookmark and Share

New York - Health officials are ready to make the final push for a statewide tax on sugary drinks, sources told the Daily News Saturday.

Both the city and state health commissioners will meet with Gov. Paterson and a team of doctors Monday to discuss the so-called soda tax.

Their goal is to tack on a penny-per-ounce tax to drinks with added sugar that contain more than 10 calories per 8 ounces.

“It’s time to get it done,” State Health Commissioner Richard Daines told the Daily News. “We’ve talked about it, the evidence for health benefits is getting a lot stronger, and the need for the revenue this year is definitely there.”

Daines is confidant the Legislature will pass the tax this year, setting an example for the rest of the country to follow.

“This is one good thing we could do during a miserable year in Albany,” Daines said.

Experts say soda and other sugar-loaded drinks are the largest source of extra calories consumed by Americans. It’s thought that a 10% price hike on soda would cut consumption by 8%.

Advertisement:

“If the consumer sees the price difference when they’re about ready to buy the product, we do see a reduction in consumption of an unhealthy food,” said Cathy Nonas, head of nutrition programs for the city Health Department.

Health benefits aside, the tax could raise up to $1 billion annually - money that would fund health care programs across the state, Daines said.

“It’s a triple play. We would reduce obesity, earn revenue to support health care and, in the long run, cut health care costs,” he said.

Studies show health care costs are 37% higher for the obese, Daines said.

A recent Quinnipiac survey found voters back a tax on soft drinks 76% to 22% - and even tax-averse Republicans favored the plan, 60% to 36%.

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter proposed a 2-cent-per-ounce tax last week that he estimates would bring in $77 million to his city annually.

The Colorado legislature approved a 2.9% candy and soda tax last month. It takes effect May 1.

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire has asked lawmakers there to come up with a tax on soda, candy and bottled water.

Jackson, Miss., killed a proposed 2-cent-per-ounce soda tax early this year.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said today on in his weekly radio address, that the state could raise nearly $1 billion a year by taxing sugary soft drinks.

Bloomberg says New York’s state Legislature should adopt a penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened soda.

He said the 12 cents a can could raise much-needed money for schools and health care.

Bloomberg said the soda tax also would promote good health by discouraging people from buying soft drinks that are loaded with sugar.


More of today's headlines

Pakistan - The American-born spokesman for al-Qaida has been arrested by Pakistani intelligence officers in the southern city of Karachi, two officers and a government... Albany, NY - Gov. Paterson's communications chief Peter Kauffmann, who quit in disgust last week, nearly bolted in January over his boss' lying ways, friends told the...

 

Total50

Read Comments (50)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Mar 07, 2010 at 12:17 PM Anonymous Says:

What happens when we all get off soda, where will they get their money from, What other law will they come up with?

2

 Mar 07, 2010 at 12:30 PM Anonymous Says:

This idea of taxing to teach is wrong. How about educating people of the dangers of these drinks like on cigarettes. Of course this the excuse to tax. But if this does go through than the money should be used to educate the public of the dangers of such large amounts of sugars. Overweight, diabetise, eye sight loss, limb loss, kidney problems, and many more Hashem Yeracheim! I wish the frum community would get educated on this!

3

 Mar 07, 2010 at 12:32 PM Anonymous Says:

Enough is Enough!!!
tell the Government to bus out of our lives I will eat what I want and drink what I want ...its time to send all these lawmakers back to where they came from they are Hypocrites who are they to lecture us on eating habbits and iur health.

4

 Mar 07, 2010 at 12:34 PM Anonymous Says:

These taxes are:

1. an attempt to engineer our behavior according to the Leftist Agenda, and;
2. raise revenues so that the ruling elite can have bigger salaries, more comprehensive health benefits, better compensation packages, etc.

This is another example of American Fascism taking all of us in.

5

 Mar 07, 2010 at 12:35 PM Anonymous Says:

did you ever think that bloomy want vote for this tax another way to make money. he dosnt care about you health......

6

 Mar 07, 2010 at 12:36 PM 5T CPA Says:

i believe a pecker tax would be more appropriate in order to raise revenues.

7

 Mar 07, 2010 at 12:39 PM 5T MD Says:

if other doctors says tax it.....i agree....the doctors only care for our well-being and our prescriptons....once a doctor made a house call to me 28 years ago...and i will noever forget he did it....so tax the people

8

 Mar 07, 2010 at 12:41 PM Anonymous Says:

If a 64 oz bottle of soda cost $1.99(which I think is high)and it will be taxed at 1 cent an ounce, that means that bottle of soda will cost $2.63 that is 30% more money, not 10 % more.

9

 Mar 07, 2010 at 12:48 PM Anonymous Says:

Mayor Bloomberg is for this tax? Very interesting....

10

 Mar 07, 2010 at 01:21 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #3  
Anonymous Says:

Enough is Enough!!!
tell the Government to bus out of our lives I will eat what I want and drink what I want ...its time to send all these lawmakers back to where they came from they are Hypocrites who are they to lecture us on eating habbits and iur health.

If you want to eat junk, that's fine. The problem is that so many people give this junk to their children.

11

 Mar 07, 2010 at 01:41 PM Shmuel Says:

All this for an 8% cut - leave people a lone let them eat and drink whatever the please

12

 Mar 07, 2010 at 01:42 PM Anonymous Says:

Their goal is to tack on a penny-per-ounce tax to drinks with added sugar. The more sugar the more tax ?

13

 Mar 07, 2010 at 01:49 PM Idiocy Says:

How about Taxing McDonalds food. However bad soda is the McDonalds food is 10x worse.

14

 Mar 07, 2010 at 01:50 PM Anonymous Says:

Bye stocks in Poland Springs

15

 Mar 07, 2010 at 02:03 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #10  
Anonymous Says:

If you want to eat junk, that's fine. The problem is that so many people give this junk to their children.

I proudly give this junk tpo my children and its none of your buisness..
do you want me to bud in the poisonouss education you give to your children well I won't cuz its none of my buisness so bud out of mine too.

16

 Mar 07, 2010 at 02:44 PM Anonymous Says:

When people lead unhealthy lifestyles they end up costing the rest of the population more because everyone ends up sharing in the added health costs. If you take this logic further there should be a tax on certain lifestyles because of the added risk of certain diseases that cost a fortune to manage.

17

 Mar 07, 2010 at 02:44 PM Midwestern Guy Says:

Somewhere, a bunch of New York liberals are high-fiving themselves as they have been successful with yet another intrusive money-grubbing tax that will accomplish two things:
1) More revenue so that they can further intrude on your lives with even more governmental programs "for your own good", of course.
2) It will provide yet another excuse to be more intrusive into people's lives. Next thing, they'll audit your grocery bills to determine if you bought items that the government deems to be "healthy". If not, look for an "unhealthy" tax.

I'll admit that years ago, I would have laughed at the idea of a soda tax, but now, nobody's laughing anymore.

18

 Mar 07, 2010 at 02:56 PM Anonymous Says:

Less diabetes. Less obesity. Less triglycerides. Less hypertension. Less hyper kids. Less nerves parents. Less heart disease. Less strokes.
Less blindness, amputations, foot problems, and kidney problems!!!

BOTTEM LINE SUGAR IS POISON.

19

 Mar 07, 2010 at 03:19 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #1  
Anonymous Says:

What happens when we all get off soda, where will they get their money from, What other law will they come up with?

They'll be taxing the air you breathe, they'll estimate your lung capacity and charge you accordingly. Just wait, it's not such an outlandish idea, not with these jokers we have running the state/city.

20

 Mar 07, 2010 at 03:20 PM Liepa Says:

Wherever there's money to be taken out of peoples pockets there's always
Bloomberg's name attached. Coincidence or what?

21

 Mar 07, 2010 at 03:21 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #4  
Anonymous Says:

These taxes are:

1. an attempt to engineer our behavior according to the Leftist Agenda, and;
2. raise revenues so that the ruling elite can have bigger salaries, more comprehensive health benefits, better compensation packages, etc.

This is another example of American Fascism taking all of us in.

If it were only a leftist agenda there wouldn't be so many republicans on the bandwagon. The reality is that it's simply an excuse to tax a large portion of the population, much higher than smokers or drinkers or lottery players.

22

 Mar 07, 2010 at 03:24 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #9  
Anonymous Says:

Mayor Bloomberg is for this tax? Very interesting....

What's so interesting about it? He's always looking for ways to tax and fine us. And so far he's been very successful.

23

 Mar 07, 2010 at 03:27 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #12  
Anonymous Says:

Their goal is to tack on a penny-per-ounce tax to drinks with added sugar. The more sugar the more tax ?

No, the more liquid the higher the tax. As long as there is 10 calories (per 8 oz.) to a drink with added sugar there will be a tax. The amount of the tax will be determined by the total ounces per drink.

24

 Mar 07, 2010 at 03:28 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #13  
Idiocy Says:

How about Taxing McDonalds food. However bad soda is the McDonalds food is 10x worse.

I'm pretty sure that MacDonald's food is taxed, as is every take out eatery. So too are all restaurants.

25

 Mar 07, 2010 at 03:39 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #17  
Midwestern Guy Says:

Somewhere, a bunch of New York liberals are high-fiving themselves as they have been successful with yet another intrusive money-grubbing tax that will accomplish two things:
1) More revenue so that they can further intrude on your lives with even more governmental programs "for your own good", of course.
2) It will provide yet another excuse to be more intrusive into people's lives. Next thing, they'll audit your grocery bills to determine if you bought items that the government deems to be "healthy". If not, look for an "unhealthy" tax.

I'll admit that years ago, I would have laughed at the idea of a soda tax, but now, nobody's laughing anymore.

This New York Liberal is not and never was in favor of this type of money-grubbing tax. This NY Liberal is highly opposed to it. This NY Liberal believes in live and let live except when someone is in danger. This NY Liberal is not alone in this thinking. In fact, this NY Liberal thinks you, Mr. Midwestern Guy, since you don't even live here, should mind your business. You know, the kind of business that you blame liberals for intruding into.

26

 Mar 07, 2010 at 03:42 PM Charlie Hall Says:

Some combination of tax increases and/or spending cuts are needed to balance the state budget. All who oppose this tax increase should state what other tax they would like to increase, and/or state exactly what programs of benefit to their community should be cut.

27

 Mar 07, 2010 at 04:37 PM Anonymous Says:

Let them either ban it or allow it. The taxing in the name of everything is wrong. Bloomberg needs to be stopped.

28

 Mar 07, 2010 at 05:03 PM Anonymous Says:

Then lose the tax on bottled waters and seltzers.

29

 Mar 07, 2010 at 05:10 PM Midwestern Guy Says:

Reply to #25  
Anonymous Says:

This New York Liberal is not and never was in favor of this type of money-grubbing tax. This NY Liberal is highly opposed to it. This NY Liberal believes in live and let live except when someone is in danger. This NY Liberal is not alone in this thinking. In fact, this NY Liberal thinks you, Mr. Midwestern Guy, since you don't even live here, should mind your business. You know, the kind of business that you blame liberals for intruding into.

Mind my own business? First, you don't know where I live. Second, a lot of other cities look at New York when they craft their own laws. These kinds of things have a way of creeping elsewhere.

Also, if you believe in "live and let live" then you're not a very typical liberal. Most liberals believe in regulating everything, which is the opposite of letting people do as they please.

But thanks for reinforcing the notion that many New Yorkers are obnoxious.

30

 Mar 07, 2010 at 05:51 PM Anonymous Says:

Does this include diet sodas?

31

 Mar 07, 2010 at 05:59 PM LIBERALISM IS A DISEASE!!! Says:

I hope you NYers are happy with your tax & spend liberal politicians. They dont know how how to restrain themselves. Tell these bums that we are not paying another penny im taxes.

Another really bad thing about this proposed tax is that this is all part of the health scam. Allowing ObamaCare to pass will give the govt power to levy taxes under the guise health care.

HEY GOVERNMENT, STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES!!!

32

 Mar 07, 2010 at 06:02 PM isaac Says:

Reply to #26  
Charlie Hall Says:

Some combination of tax increases and/or spending cuts are needed to balance the state budget. All who oppose this tax increase should state what other tax they would like to increase, and/or state exactly what programs of benefit to their community should be cut.

Here's how you do it. You cut taxes. That way spending increases, more merchandise is sold, more taxes are collected. Incentivize spending, not punish it.

33

 Mar 07, 2010 at 06:11 PM Anonymous Says:

I dont mind,let them tax the soft drinks.But only if the 100% fruit drinks come down by 30%.

34

 Mar 07, 2010 at 07:11 PM proud obnoxious new yorker Says:

Reply to #29  
Midwestern Guy Says:

Mind my own business? First, you don't know where I live. Second, a lot of other cities look at New York when they craft their own laws. These kinds of things have a way of creeping elsewhere.

Also, if you believe in "live and let live" then you're not a very typical liberal. Most liberals believe in regulating everything, which is the opposite of letting people do as they please.

But thanks for reinforcing the notion that many New Yorkers are obnoxious.

Yup, most obnoxious people in the world live here so save yourself aggrevation and stay away

35

 Mar 07, 2010 at 07:17 PM Anonymous Says:

They should impose a tax on red meat since it is a much bigger threat to health and well being than carbonated beverages. There is no need to eat meat. Raising the meat is a big souce of global warming (fertilizer for the feed, flatulence from the animanls and energy used to transport them to the shlachthois). Instead, they should use the proceeds from a meat tax to subsidize healthy vegetarian alternatives. Even traditional foods like chulent taste much better when made with tofu rather than fatty meat.

36

 Mar 07, 2010 at 09:18 PM Anonymous Says:

Would there also be a tax on diet soda??

37

 Mar 07, 2010 at 09:35 PM SimchaB Says:

What about Kedem grape juice with 37 grams of sugar per cup more than any soda? Oh, I forgot it has "no sugar added"! Concentrated grape juice, nah, that's not sugar, naw, our pancreases just love that fructose, arrgh! While we're at it what about apple and orange juice they have the same sugar content as soda. Let's just tax everything up to our eyeballs, that will solve all our problems. Ah! Utopia!

38

 Mar 07, 2010 at 10:25 PM Anonymous Says:

"Health is wealth" is known to all and everyone wants good health. That means no one wants to leave this wealth. So, Let us build a food habit discipline, keep pace with work, rest and or exercise to Achieve good health, The ultimate wealth.
The Health Dude

39

 Mar 07, 2010 at 11:25 PM Anonymous Says:

Sugar substitutes have been shown to cause effects so since we are not sure wha they can casue to our kids lets give it to them becausue it is cheaper it is not taxed this doesn't seem correct
I have some better taxes
I think everytime politicians open their mouths and the unhealthy diarrhea comes out we should tax them. The big cars they drive with the entourage of SUVs should be taxed a penny a foot per vehicle they drive. They should be taxed for every day they work it will be cheaper for us to pay them the salary and let them go on vacation for the whole year they do nothing sittng there.

40

 Mar 07, 2010 at 11:58 PM Charlie Hall Says:

Reply to #32  
isaac Says:

Here's how you do it. You cut taxes. That way spending increases, more merchandise is sold, more taxes are collected. Incentivize spending, not punish it.

Nope, it doesn't work that way.

Suppose you cut state sales taxes 1%, from the current 4% to 3%. That is a 25% cut in revenues. The 1% cut in taxes would have to result in a sales volume increase of over 33% just to stay even. There is no product for which the price elasticity of demand is so great that one would see that kind of impact. And the state can't afford to merely stay even, as its budget is out of balance; it needs more revenue.

Nobody likes new taxes, at least on themselves. But we are stuck with the arithmetic.

41

 Mar 07, 2010 at 11:59 PM Charlie Hall Says:

Reply to #37  
SimchaB Says:

What about Kedem grape juice with 37 grams of sugar per cup more than any soda? Oh, I forgot it has "no sugar added"! Concentrated grape juice, nah, that's not sugar, naw, our pancreases just love that fructose, arrgh! While we're at it what about apple and orange juice they have the same sugar content as soda. Let's just tax everything up to our eyeballs, that will solve all our problems. Ah! Utopia!

Yes, fruit juice has a huge amount of sugar and probably isn't any better for you than the sweetened soft drinks. There is no reason to exclude it from the tax.

What services to your community would you forgo so that this tax would be unnecessary?

42

 Mar 08, 2010 at 12:01 AM Charlie Hall Says:

Reply to #35  
Anonymous Says:

They should impose a tax on red meat since it is a much bigger threat to health and well being than carbonated beverages. There is no need to eat meat. Raising the meat is a big souce of global warming (fertilizer for the feed, flatulence from the animanls and energy used to transport them to the shlachthois). Instead, they should use the proceeds from a meat tax to subsidize healthy vegetarian alternatives. Even traditional foods like chulent taste much better when made with tofu rather than fatty meat.

I agree about the vegetarian cholent but there actually are halachic opinions that say that it is a mitzvah to eat meat on Yom Tov even in our times. Now, there have been some great rabbis who are vegetarians so this opinion is not universally held, but we should accept the existence of different halachic opinions.

43

 Mar 08, 2010 at 12:41 AM Simple Says:

Reply to #41  
Charlie Hall Says:

Yes, fruit juice has a huge amount of sugar and probably isn't any better for you than the sweetened soft drinks. There is no reason to exclude it from the tax.

What services to your community would you forgo so that this tax would be unnecessary?

You want to know how to raise or rather save $300,000,000? Privatize the MTA!!!!

44

 Mar 08, 2010 at 01:33 AM Anonymous Says:

#35 Go see a doctor quickly!!!!!!!!!!

45

 Mar 08, 2010 at 01:44 AM PMO Says:

Last year New York State (again) raised taxes on cigarettes to a level so obscene the founding fathers would have gone back to England. 600% taxes on a pack in NYC. When that happened I watched all the liberals (and even some of the so-called 'conservatives') here praising the state for taxing people into doing what as "good for them". I wrote a comment then that many people actually argued with. I said this would push so many people to quit and that would actually be the biggest problem.

Once you give the state the money, they will never live without it. So, as people quit smoking they had to make up that money somewhere else. The socialists like Bloomberg were never going to cut the disgusting socialist programs like section8 welfare and food stamps, so the only option was to find something else to tax.

When you allow the GOVERNMENT to use its power to force other people to do what is "good for them" through taxation, you give them the power to decide to do it every aspect of life. What's next? 600% tax on a bottle of salt? 500% tax on vegetable oil? 600% tax on liver?

How much are you willing to let the GOVERNMENT decide what is best for you? THAT is the question.

46

 Mar 08, 2010 at 02:19 AM Liberalism is a Disease!!! Says:

Reply to #40  
Charlie Hall Says:

Nope, it doesn't work that way.

Suppose you cut state sales taxes 1%, from the current 4% to 3%. That is a 25% cut in revenues. The 1% cut in taxes would have to result in a sales volume increase of over 33% just to stay even. There is no product for which the price elasticity of demand is so great that one would see that kind of impact. And the state can't afford to merely stay even, as its budget is out of balance; it needs more revenue.

Nobody likes new taxes, at least on themselves. But we are stuck with the arithmetic.

Charlie Charlie Charlie,

when will you stop doubting us??? EVERY TIME taxes have been cut there has been an increase in govt revenue. I hate to confuse you with facts but that is the case... AGAIN.

47

 Mar 08, 2010 at 02:23 AM Ezekiel Emanuel Says:

Reply to #40  
Charlie Hall Says:

Nope, it doesn't work that way.

Suppose you cut state sales taxes 1%, from the current 4% to 3%. That is a 25% cut in revenues. The 1% cut in taxes would have to result in a sales volume increase of over 33% just to stay even. There is no product for which the price elasticity of demand is so great that one would see that kind of impact. And the state can't afford to merely stay even, as its budget is out of balance; it needs more revenue.

Nobody likes new taxes, at least on themselves. But we are stuck with the arithmetic.

We need to tax people for the sake of health after all when people are not healthy it creates a burden on society because the govt has to pay it. If we tax these items, the people consuming them will in essence pay their way. Of course we wont pay for their health coverage anyway because they are bringing the rest of us down so we will be doing everyone a favor by eliminating some people who "cant cooperate."

48

 Mar 08, 2010 at 12:25 PM fedup11210 Says:

Next he will tax all fruit juices. Are you wiling to pay $1 more per bottle of grape juice (for the 96 oz bottle).

49

 Mar 08, 2010 at 12:48 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #41  
Charlie Hall Says:

Yes, fruit juice has a huge amount of sugar and probably isn't any better for you than the sweetened soft drinks. There is no reason to exclude it from the tax.

What services to your community would you forgo so that this tax would be unnecessary?

I believe the tax is on drinks with ADDED sugar so fruit drinks would/could be taxed but fruit juices normally wouldn't be.

50

 Mar 08, 2010 at 11:32 PM conservative Says:

How many people quit smoking because of the $20(?) per carton tax? How many people stopped driving or modified there driving because of highway taxes added to gasoline? If taxes reduce consumption than a highway impovement tax on gasoline is counter productive, because they'll make less money then they would be lowering taxes. Yet they continue to speak out of both sides of their mouth.

51

Sign-in to post a comment

Scroll Up
Advertisements:

Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!