CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:33 pm
 


andyt andyt:
Holy shit.


Sorry Andy.......didn't realize I was posting the same comment so often as I didn't come to the forum to do it..........and I didn't see the continue discussion in forum soon enough. Sorry for the bother.

As for a tax, I have found over the decades that specific taxes like this have a tendency to find their way into other areas that have little or nothing to do with the reason they were implemented.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:41 pm
 


This is a good tax, in the sense that we want to tax things we want to reduce. Over the decades taxes can increase or what have you. Such is life in a modern state. Better this tax, say, that MSP premiums in BC. You could make your argument about any tax - I think this tax is better than some others,


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1804
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:07 pm
 


We need to charge a heavy tax on anyone named "Patrick Luciani", "Kate Comeau", or members of the "Dietitians of Canada". Anyone else want to impose taxes? I can add your name to that list.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Pittsburgh Penguins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2146
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:11 pm
 


It would be better than others, not discounting that at all, but do we really need yet another tax and all the ensuing bureaucracy that come with it. I still think, not. Looks like we are at a stalemate.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11829
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 2:39 pm
 


$1:
The argument against this tax seems to always be made by righties who claim they don't personally consume a lot of sugar

No it doesn't. It comes from all sides. Doesn't matter what political stripe you are, if you claim you don't consume a lot of sugar you're full of shit.
Been actively trying to reduce sugar intake for a year, yeah... lots of fun! It's in everything.
Reminds me of cooking with Lydia and her "just a little more salt" as the dumptruck backs up to the spaghetti pot....
Hows about just some honest labeling - there's so many grams of sugar in this bottle. (not per 3 ml suggested serving)
And you don't need the gov't ordering shit. Look what they did with the big snafu on pop ayear or so ago... the companies now make a smaller bottle and didn't reduce the price. Wow! Such social conciousness among capitalists, some even bragged about it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 12349
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:19 pm
 


As long as there's an equivalent reduction in tax on something else, like income, sure. Economists love taxes that create incentive. "Sin" taxes, like this, are the preferred form of taxation because of the positive external benefits they create. And sin taxes give people a fighting chance at avoiding tax. Makes the whole collection process seem a little less like a stick-up. Income taxes, by contrast, are irrational because they discourage something we want to encourage: making money. So as long as the introduction scheme is revenue-neutral, have at it.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11829
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:37 pm
 


Put the tax on raw sugar! Then you can GET MOM TOO for making cookies instead of cauliflower and kale for her kids... :twisted:
Remember how when you were a kid even Mom's unsweetened baking chocolate was better than NO chocolate?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:47 pm
 


herbie herbie:
Put the tax on raw sugar! Then you can GET MOM TOO for making cookies instead of cauliflower and kale for her kids... :twisted:
Remember how when you were a kid even Mom's unsweetened baking chocolate was better than NO chocolate?


Agreed. I said as much in an earlier post. You guys carry on like this is the end of sugar, when all the tax would do is hopefully reduce consumption a bit. Look at the sin taxes on booze and cigs - might have reduced their use, but people are still willing to shell out the buck for their addiction.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23084
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:38 pm
 


I don't have a problem with this, as it would be another sin tax IMHO. I don't see it as any different than taxing booze or cigarettes.

If you don't want to pay it, then don't buy Oreos or Coke, pretty simple.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 50938
PostPosted: Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:59 pm
 


Why should we pay an extra sin tax on something we don't even produce?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:40 am
 


Brenda Brenda:
Why should we pay an extra sin tax on something we don't even produce?


[huh]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 50938
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:05 am
 


Do we, Canada, decide how much sugar Coke puts in its cola? Can we, Canada, change the amount of sugar Coke puts in its drinks?

If there is nothing we can do about it, the only way to make us 'stop drinking so much sugar' is by taxing it?

Worked well with cigarettes too... :roll:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33492
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 9:10 am
 


Yes, yes it did actually.

We could force coke to use less sugar. Taxing it instead is a softer approach.

Not sure why a sugar tax seems to get people so upset.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
Profile
Posts: 10666
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:27 am
 


andyt andyt:
Yes, yes it did actually.

We could force coke to use less sugar. Taxing it instead is a softer approach.

Not sure why a sugar tax seems to get people so upset.


Taxes on cigarettes did little to nothing to curb use.

Education is what caused the decline in usage along with the habit being deemed socially unacceptable, not taxation.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 50938
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 10:29 am
 


OnTheIce OnTheIce:
andyt andyt:
Yes, yes it did actually.

We could force coke to use less sugar. Taxing it instead is a softer approach.

Not sure why a sugar tax seems to get people so upset.


Taxes on cigarettes did little to nothing to curb use.

Education is what caused the decline in usage along with the habit being deemed socially unacceptable, not taxation.

I agree.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 96 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 171 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.