An addict is an addict. Paying a few extra cents to discourage people from consuming it won't help any more than taxing cigarettes made smokers quit. The only thing it will do is help separate people from their money. Good ole water is my drink of choice...and it's free!

I don't drink pop, it's gross.

This whole argument is completely insane. These ads they are playing on TV - "We don't need any new taxes when I am trying to feed my family" -make. me. sick. You SHOULD pay more for feeding your family liquid diabetes.

I agree with Linda48T. This is not going to prevent the people who want to drink it from drinking it. It's no different than smokers. Where I live they cost $8 per PACK. But you still see people lighting up left and right. People need to want to make healthy decisions for themselves.

The real issue I have with this is that obesity and poverty usually go hand in hand. Fast food is very cheap, so if you don't have a lot of money you are naturally going to gravitate towards cheaper food. Cheaper food is usually not good for you, so if that's all you can afford then your health is going to suffer. If the government really wants to make a difference in the obesity epidemic, then they need to find ways to make healthy, organic, and fresh foods more affordable and accessible.

I don't drink soda, but I still don't want it taxed. I don't like people telling me what to and not to drink/eat/whatever. I mean, what next, are they going to tax my once-a-year peppermint mocha indulgence too??? I'm sure those are worse than diet coke!

I think this is dumb. We need to do a major overhaul in educating people to eat better and take care of themselves. Taxing is not the answer is that how America came to be we were sick of being taxed for dumb things by the British

I only drink soda once in a while. They have already imposed a tax on soft drinks here in Chicago. Frankly, if they've taxed the heck out of cigarettes and people haven't quit smoking, I seriously doubt an extra tax on soda is going to deter people from drinking it.

With healthcare reform in the works, we need to find extra money somewhere. Obesity (like smoking as others of you mentioned) drives up the cost of healthcare and therefore I think it's a good idea to tax some of the items that contribute to this epidemic. Even if it doesn't cause anyone to quit, it'll at least pay for their increased cost of care. It would be difficult to draw the line though. Is Hansens natural soda on the same level as the regular syrup filled drinks? I'm personally not worried about natural sugar, at least not nearly as much as I am about all the processed crap.

I also agree with #4. The other problem is the correlation between obesity and income level. People need to be better educated on exercise and how to feed your family healthy foods on a tight budget. I get a lot of my cheap and easy recipes from Eating Well magazine. Their section for cheap recipes has a whole host of good things that are all under $5 a serving (mine are usually around $3 since I'm a vegetarian).

If they tax soda, it won't bother me since I don't drink it and I don't think anyone should drink it regularly either. Still, this isn't the way to solve the problem. Like other posters said, people will just spend the extra money for their soda and have less to provide real nutrition to their families.

I think it's a good way for the government to get money, but it certainly won't stop people from drinking soda. If they were that concerned about saving money, they'd drink water in the first place. If a soda tax really effects you that much, you're drinking way too much soda.

I have maybe two sodas in a year, so a tax doesn't really impact me. That said, I voted no because I think it's a bad idea. I can't imagine that soda tax would bring in a significant amount of money to the government, or that soda drinkers would balk at paying an extra 20 cents and change their habits.

When and where will it end? Soda now, what's next?

Sugar in general?

Fatty cuts of meat later?

Skinny jeans since they create poor circulation?

Why not tax foods that are bad for you? Complaining that you don't want more taxes (we pay the LOWEST tax rates in the developed world, BTW) on something you don't consume very often anyway is pretty dumb. And if you drink soda enough that a nickel tax on each bottle will significantly impact your budget THEN YOU DRINK TOO MUCH EFFING SODA. PERIOD. I'm so tired of hearing all these arguments about the government "controlling" people's lives - if you are too STUPID or ignorant or uneducated to know that you shouldn't drink that much soda, then maybe a tax will open your eyes. We need MORE TAXES. Our coffers are running dry.

its lame... its just a ploy to get extra cash. How can you exclude soda from all the other bad stuff in the world... why not hit ding dong cupcakes, donuts, chips, pizza, cheese, everything fried...
Everything in moderation... if you really want it you will spend the money.

Option B: Yes, because it can fund Obama's health plan. The people who are guzzling gallons of sodas are the ones who are most likely (or will be) the biggest burden on America's current healthcare "system," so why shouldn't they help to fund it?

@VSugar: THANK YOU for pointing this out. It kills me when I hear other Americans b*tching about "paying high taxes." Even the highest percentage of taxation in America doesn't even come close to European taxation.

Why is it "dumb" to complain? And since when is that even an argument? I'm complaining because I live in America and I like freedom. I like being able to decide on my own if things are good or bad for me and if I will choose to partake in those good and/or bad things. No one else has any right to tell me that soda is too darn bad for me to drink.

It's the principle of it! The principle of giving away your freedoms at the drop of a hat.

And declaring your opponent is ignorant and uneducated without even knowing anything about him or her is childish.

Make an actual argument and perhaps we can debate this.

And our "coffers are running dry" because our elected officials spend money they don't have.

Solzhenitsyn once said that people simply cannot handle freedom, I'm starting to think that perhaps he is right...

@Syako: Your argument is flawed. If you like living in a country where you decide what is good or bad for you and how you should be taxed, then I suggest you move to a direct democracy. In the grand scheme of American bureaucracy, your opinion means very little.

Actually, they've shown that the cigarette tax has decreased smoking. I think it's a great idea, soda (like cigarettes) have no redeeming value. No one is making soda illegal or something. Plus, less people drinking soda >> less fat people >> less health insurance costs for everyone.

It's a pointless tax. Just so they can make more money. If they want to make more money take the billions of dallars that are going over seas and into organizations that sre point less or just out right not listened to. Yes we are the so called super power and we should be held to higher standards but now everything is getting ridiculous we need to focus in and not out right now. A soda tax is not the best way to do that a cut in spending over seas is. But what do I know the government had 8 plus billion dollars to give to companies that were in trouble putting more money in the rich not the poor or the so called middle classes hand to save a capitalist society. As far as I can remember is that companies failing was part of capitalism.

I'm not saying I get to directly tell the gov what it can and cannot tax me on. I mean, do you really think that's what I'm arguing?

I am saying that I am against the tax because I don't fundamentally agree with the premise of it. And I would never vote for a candidate who would propose such a ridiculous piece of legislation.

And that's a terrible outlook you have - because America is "big" our opinions don't matter? That's a great way to excuse yourself from critical thinking and having to use your brain.

that would just be really annoying, since i srink soda rarely but sometimes thats the best drink with a specific meal (think oily lol) i would hope that they wouldn implement a tax, but i prob. wouldnt care either way.

Amen SYAKO!

All I know is I can't wait to get my gov't rebate check for the bubble wrapping of my entire house... I hear they think we can't handle sharp corners.

First of all, soda doesn't inherently make you fat, especially if you're talking about diet soda. Granted, soda isn't the healthiest beverage out there, but neither is Kool Aid or fruit juices full of corn syrup. Like others have said, taxing soda won't probably stop people from drinking it. They've been talking about a higher tax on beer/liquor in our state and I know it won't stop anyone from buying it because people will still want beer even if it means paying more for it.

I stopped drinking that crap a couple of years of ago its nothing but corn syrup in a bottle. Just check out how healthy that stuff is for you. The tax is just another way to fatten they pockets.

I'll have to adopt the cigarette smokers line of thinking. - F- you, if I want it I will pay the higher tax regardless.

The government will not dictate what I drink if its not alcohol or poisonous - this is really trivial crap but that's the way SF's moronic politicians roll. Focus on trivial crap and leave the big items to fall by the wayside until catastrophe strikes.

This darn city still hasn't update our fire hydrants so that if another huge quake strikes and fires start up other counties can send their fire trucks to help. Currently, no other county can come with their trucks to help SFFD because we still have hydrants with connectors from the early 1800's and the BoS and Mayor haven't bothered to take the initiative to fix this horrible dangerous problem. But oh SODA is soooo dangerous.

Bunch of idiots in SF Politics.

@Syako: The size of a nation doesn't matter in terms of government--it's the infrastructure. In a representative government with no cap on terms in office, your voice really doesn't matter so much. Sure, you can lobby to your representative or senators, but at the end of the day they vote how they will vote. If you were to live under a direct democracy, you would realize the farce of American politics.

In other western nations where a luxury tax is levied on fast foods and sodas, the system works. People eat junk less, are significantly thinner, AND have a real health care system. Does anyone here arguing against a soda tax find it acceptable that 23% of the American population is obese?

@wackdoodle: The proposed soda tax isn't being voted on a municipal level--it would be a federal tax.

Is this a civics lesson? I don't need it, but thanks...

My concept of how to solve problems is obviously fundamentally different than your's. I, personally, don't like--nor want--a nanny state. You seem to have no problem with that.

Otherwise, we're going to keep going in circles. So let's just call it a day... crack open a Coca Cola Classic... and enjoy the weekend!

LOL.

But, I've lived under various systems, and I am 100% pro taxation (REAL taxation, not the American version). When your tax dollars are being used efficiently and you are benefiting (real health care, for instance), where is the problem? Furthermore, I think the soda tax provides a way to pro-actively fund the proposed health care system. Why shouldn't Americans receive real health care from the sale of "liquid diabetes?" (as someone previously stated)

well I'm just anti-taxation.

But on to the liquid diabetes celebration...

i'd rather they end corn/soybean subsidies instead.
that avoids the counter-argument of 'controlling what we eat'.
plus it would increase the cost of all products that have become loaded with high fructose corn syrup.

Asche - Why can't you accept that some people don't want taxation and would rather have not have the programs you suggested in exchange for more of their own money and the freedom to make their own choices?

It may not be your way, but that doesn't mean that your way is the only way or the right way.

@Hausfrau: How can one have freedom to make their own choices (I speak in terms of health care) when there are essentially no choices? Auf jeden Fall, bist du deutschsprachig?

And I wouldn't consider health care subsidized partially from luxury taxes on junk food "my way" (although I would be quite proud to have thought of it!). It's much of the western world operates, and, if I am not mistaken, the US is the only western nation with no health care system in place.

18% of the American population 18-65 does not have health insurance according to the Census bureau (so that number is most definitely higher), and this percentage is increasing every year. Call me a socialist, but this really bothers me. Why should people suffer because others choose to be selfish?

Ack, we've discussed this ad nauseum in many of the political groups on sugar, if you would like to join in there, it would be easier...
http://citizen-40.tressugar.com/
That's a good place to start.

Taxing even diet soda?? That would be nutty.

AWESOME! Thanks Syako...I had no idea that existed on here. I look forward to debating your further

Yes, our coffers are running dry because the goverment is spend happy and gives money to everyone. yes, lets tax soda and then give billions more to banks so they can give out bonuses!

Asche - I point you to Sfgate.com. Our lame-o Mayor Gavin Nosnothing is proposing a sales tax only on soda for SF. That is what I was speaking of and considering the Popsugar is based in SF I figured that that is what they were speaking of as well.

People better wake up to what's going on here in this country. Your hambugers, hotdogs and steaks are next. Then your health insurance company is going to know you bought it on your credit card, and raise your insurance rates...and get rid of it because the gov. will penlize you for no health insurance. I don't smoke and think it's a discusting habit, however I've always been against taxing them, knowing if they get away with it, something you care about will be next. Wake up people!

@wackdoodle: So would you have to pay a soda tax on top of a local soda tax? Sounds like SF would become even healthier!

@Anon: I don't think the system would be so Big Brother . MA has universal health insurance already, and any taxation on food had nothing to do with the insurance plans you have to buy (which are incredibly cheaper than the rest of the country b/c it's subsidized). Does your current insurance company see if you buy cigarettes or alcohol? No, because they have nothing to do with banking.

i doubt these "fat people" will lose weight just by taxing soda. pretty sure they got that way by consuming more than just soda. this is idiotic. what about all of those "juice drinks" that have even more sugar than soda?

I think as opposing drinks like Pepsi (http://adwido.com/view_content?vkey=786f58749dc92445683e0d064b76701b) it would be much more efficient to impose a tax on alcohol.

No, no Asche - It would be the price of the soda + 9.5% City/state sales tax + CRV (mandatory CA recycling value fee) + the new SF soda tax + the federal tax that won't happen

I don't keep it in the house anyway for more than just for the occasional party for mixing (hey, if I'm going to bust my diet, I'm going to do it the right way!)

I wouldn't tax soda, I don't think it's that damaging. However, fast food would be at the top of my list. That stuff is horrible. Sure, it would more than likely be like the cigarette tax (neither of my parents quit) but I know friends of mine would think twice before eating that garbage.

@SYAKO i cant help but smile when you said,
"I'm complaining because I live in America and I like freedom. I like being able to decide on my own if things are good or bad for me and if I will choose to partake in those good and/or bad things. No one else has any right to tell me that soda is too darn bad for me to drink."
Boy do you sound dumb. When did we have freedom?
How can you say you want freedom to have the right to choose what you drink without gov't intervention when someone else can't even have the legal right to marry someone of the same sex. Im not gay, but that sounds like its unfair to their choice. Their freedoms, regardless of religion. It all comes down to choices. I dont think a govt tax on soda is that bad especially when people cant control themselves. I aplaude those who can make good choices for themselves.

Hmmmm. I have a few obese friends that I spend a lot of time with, so I have gotten a good look at their eating habits. It so happens that none of them are soda drinkers, except one who occasionally drinks a Coke Zero, but mostly he drinks coffee. It really isn't what my fat friends drink that's the problem. It's what and how much they EAT -and probably more HOW MUCH than anything else. They can't seem to stop eating.

For example, they will eat a huge meal with meat and potatoes, or rice, or pasta, possibly a vegetable and/or salad. If they're eating at someone's home instead of at a restaurant, they will take a second helping. Maybe a third. There will always be dessert. Sometimes TWO. And if we're at a cafe or restaurant and there isn't a dessert they like, I've seen my friends order A SECOND MEAL.

They never seem to feel full.

This is why they're fat. They don't go to McDonalds. The food isn't delicious enough. It doesn't appeal to them. No, they like slow food and lots of it. And these people are not rich. They have average incomes, and the two that have below average incomes SKIMP ON OTHER THINGS because - as they have told me - eating is their favorite thing in life. It's a pleasure and a comfort.

True, these friends do prefer the most comforting - and that translates to "fattening" - foods but I'm sure if they couldn't get that, they'd just eat a lot of other food. Or maybe take up smoking to curb their cravings.

Or they'd just get really short-tempered and stressed out and have ailments from that, not to mention the stress of losing friends.

People who get really fat get that way because they eat way more than a slim or even a pleasantly plump person. I put it to you that if we're seeing a rise in real obesity, there's something psychological going on that's resulting in more people seeking comfort and satisfaction in food. Lots of food.

Soda is gross.

Another aspect of the obesity discussion that I'd like to question is the idea that we need better education about foods and fattness. ALL of my fat friends know what foods are fattening. They know about nutrition and the bad health effects of obesity.

They do not care.

The middle-aged ones already have health problems, but they say that the suffering and stress they experience if they don't eat as they do is far worse to them than the prospect of continuing or even worsening ailments and earlier death! To these friends, life without overeating is a greater misery than whatever misery their obesity brings.

I couldn't live like that. Even a little extra fat around my waist makes me too uncomfortable. Also, I'm vain. Also, I'd like to live long and happily, and I have a good chance of that because longevity is in the family. But I'M HAPPY LIVING LIKE A SLIM PERSON.

My fat friends would not be.

I think the vast majority of people know how one gets fat, and that being fat isn't good for you, and they can also tell when they are gaining weight and they know what to do if they don't want to get fat. A lack of knowledge isn't the problem here.

@jrj073000: Is alcohol not taxed in your state? It's heavily taxed in the state where I grew up, so the state gov't make a high revenue off of it's sale.

@Noxcatt: We all disagree (hell, I disagree with everything ), but everyone has kept it pretty civilized up 'til now. Please don't call other users "dumb."