| More
Home / Soft Drinks / Headlines


January 20, 2010
printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


NY Soft Drink Tax: Second Verse, As Bad As The First

NY Soft Drink Tax: Second Verse, As Bad As The First

Empire State Governor David Paterson wasn’t bluffing when he said last fall that he wanted to bring his widely panned soft-drink tax proposal back from the grave. You might remember that in December 2008, he proposed an 18 percent tax on sugar-sweetened beverages like sports drinks, energy drinks, and soda to try to close a budget shortfall. By February, however, his proposal had lost its fizz. His new plan, announced yesterday, is a penny-per-ounce tax—so if a 20-ounce sports drink costs a dollar, it would amount to a 20 percent tax on soft drinks.

While food cop Kelly Brownell giddily called the first proposal “bold reform” and has since been throwing his weight around trying to get a penny-per-ounce fee on sugary drinks, taxpayers haven’t been so gung-ho. A Quinnipiac University poll found that only 37 percent of New Yorkers supported taxes on their sugary drinks. And those numbers likely haven’t gone anywhere but south. A (national) poll released in September by the Opinion Research Corporation found that two-thirds of Americans oppose such a tax. There’s good reason: People rightfully realize that paternalistic politicians have no business creating special fees to engineer what we put in our mouths.

As we’re telling the media today, Paterson’s soft drink tax sequel earns a review as flat as the original:

The tax code should not be a tool of social engineering against New Yorkers who choose to make food and drink choices that paternalistic officials like Governor Paterson don’t approve of. New York state is home to the Big Apple, not Big Brother.

There is no single cause of obesity, therefore singling out sugary drinks makes no sense. Paterson’s latest proposal only serves to fatten the wallets of Albany politicians, not trim New Yorkers’ waistlines.

email us comments

Share




printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list

Daily Headlines

  • Video of the Week
    Posted On: Monday 8/2/2010
  • WWJS? What Would Julia Say—A Sweet Video
    Posted On: Wednesday 7/21/2010
  • Big Government Doesn’t Mean Smaller Waistlines
    Posted On: Wednesday 7/14/2010
  • Taking the Fizz Out of Soft Drink Taxes
    Posted On: Wednesday 5/12/2010
  • CCF vs. Vilsack
    Posted On: Thursday 5/6/2010
  • Soda Taxes Take a Hit
    Posted On: Tuesday 4/27/2010
  • Taking Twinkie Taxes to the Logical Conclusion
    Posted On: Thursday 4/8/2010


  • Activist Cash

    Center for Science in the Public Interest
    Background | Quotes | Financials
    The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is the undisputed leader among America’s “food police.” CSPI’s joyless eating club has issued hundreds of high-profile — and highly questionable — reports condemning soft drinks, fat substitutes, irradiated meat, biotech food crops, French fries, and just about anything that tastes good. read more here »

    Marion Nestle
    Background
    Marion Nestle is one of the country’s most hysterical anti-food-industry fanatics. She writes: “Sellers of food products do not attract the same kind of attention as purveyors of drugs or tobacco. They should.” read more here »

    OpEds

    No need to hop on pop for obesity taxes
    California legislators have a new idea: Tax soft drinks to make citizens slim down. read more here »

    Soda tax isn't about improving health
    Politicians are usually at their most creative when the opportunity for raking in money is at hand. Now state legislators have a new idea: Tax soft drinks to make Kansans slim down. read more here »


    Copyright © 1997-2010 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.