Of course the problem with this question is I don't drink them anyway.

But it is ridicules that they want to install a lifestyle tax, to make people behave as they want

No. It will just mean I have less extra money to give to charity.

so if there's going to be a tax on sugary drinks like sodas, ... is there going to be a tax on sugary and fattening foods like twinkies, brownies, chocolate, ... If not then this idea makes no sense.

Sure - if it will help more of the uninsured get insured - why not!

Since sugary drinks are usually a treat (or rarely succumbed vice, whatever works) for me, an increase in cost would definitely cut back on my purchases. Except in places where the sugary drink + new tax is still equal or less than water or other healthy options. Then I wouldn't think twice about treating myself.

Will this exclude drinks that use artificial sugar such as Coke Zero? What will be next? This is a dangerous road we do not want to go down!!

I will not cut back on my sugary drink consumption, just as a tax on lame Express questions (or lame responses) would not reduce those, either.

Please, these drinks are already like 90% net profit for their producers. Competition will require they eat the tax themselves and only make 89% profit.

I propose a tax on all the sugary Obama Fan Club material in every DC store.

No. I avoid sugar wherever possible anyway.

Sugar and our narcissistic lifestyle is the reason behind the obesity epidemic and a major contributor to our lousy health-care system. Tax the bejezzus out of sugar and America will be significantly healthier (in more ways than just "personal health").

I love when we get even mildly left-vs-right questions, because the wacko rightists come out of the woodwork on this site... Can we see this as an apolitical, public health issue instead of a referendum on our love/hate relationship with the administration?

The fact is that food that's bad for you is cheaper than food that's not, and that includes drinks. While it's admirable that governments want to make bad food more expensive, they should also make a concerted effort to encourage good food to be less expensive and more accessible.

I love my $1 double cheeseburgers, but if there were something healthier (that still filled me up) on the dollar menu, I'd probably switch over, at least occasionally.

Impossible, I don't drink such trash. I should add that I'm in favor of "sin" taxes as a rule. The fact is, there is no biological need for nicotine, gambling or high fructose corn syrup. And hey, if the end result is a leaner, healthier, more financially secure America, all the better.

All a tax on sugary drinks would do is make me exclaim, "All they know how to do is tax and spend!"

No, sin taxes are both regressive and ineffective.The simple-minded will continue expand their mass regardless of the cost. Look at smoking. The risks are clear: cancer, heart disease, emphysema, COPD ... AND cigarettes have high taxes on them. Yet there are still 10s of millions of stupid people lighting up every day. You can't legislate morality nor can you legislate intelligence.

I don't drink sugary drinks; but, if I did, no. High cost & tax don't stop a person from buying cigarettes because of their addiction to nicotine. High cost & tax will not stop a person from buying sugary drinks because of their addiction to sugar and caffeine

I haven't had a sugary drink in years but I have had a diet drink. Would the tax apply to diet drinks even though they have no sugar or would all sodas be taxed (to be fair)?

If not, how does my price not go up at Taco Bell when I order a diet soda since they hand you a cup and let you fill it yourself?

No, because I don't drink them any more anyway. As I have matured I have naturally stopped drinking bubbly, sugary drinks. Most of you who now consume these beverages will find this to be the case as you age. Just sayin'.

I guess I'll just have to drink that much more beer.

V@8:05; Should we then tax the bejezuss out of butter, salt, hot dogs, Ramen noodles, DIET soda, liquor and chocolate so "...America will be significantly healthier...?" Where do you draw the line?

Was Buf., Now Was.@8:21: Everything is left/right with you, isn't it? Why is this question anything but apolitical? Surely you're implying that one side endorses taxes as a way of controlling human behavior and the other doesn't, are you? Does this mean that you would endorse whichever side wanted to tax your $1.00 (unhealthy) double cheeseburger?

Diaogenes@8:32: Define "sin." Is dancing a sin? Singing? Golf? Being gay? Who decides? Is (insert name here)'s sin your sin? Can't think for yourself?

MildlyMisanthropic@8:53: Your last line says it well; but it doesn't mean that the effort will stop, unfortunately.

No, except for when I'm in the mood for a good iced tea. But I'm not completely for this. There are a lot of people out there who drink the sugary stuff because they cannot afford to eat properly. Taxing them really doesn't seem like a smooth idea. When its cheaper to go buy a stack of double cheeseburgers instead of cooking a healthy meal at home then there is a problem. Help the people at the bottom of the ladder first.

ABSOLUTELY! It would be a WIN-WIN-WIN situation.

If taxes are raised on sugay drinks, I would certainly drink more of them. Here's why:

First, I would do my PATRIOTIC DUTY and pay more taxes. I would make a contribution to reducing the national debt. I would pay MY FAIR SHARE! I would give part of my hard-earned income to the Federal Government, which is so much better at deciding how it should be spent! WIN #1!

Second, I would help to lessen UNEMPLOYMENT! Just think of all those people in the sugary drink industry who might lose their jobs if I were to give up drinking sugary drinks. I want to do MY PART to ensure that we recover jobs -- and drinking more sugary drinks will keep more people in the sugary drink industry at work! WIN#2!

Third, I will help to support the cane, beet, and corn farmers of the USA! They need our support. It is just sound economics to support those large farming corporations that provide so many profits to AMERICAN stockeholders. I would definitely NOT want to be responsiible for diriving corporations -- some of them too large to fail -- out of business. WIN #3!

In sum, it is the PATRIOTIC DUTY of every AMERICAN to do all we can to PAY MORE TAXES!! Drink lots of sugary drinks! And if you get fat, who cares? You'll have guaranteed health care -- paid for by the RICH!

@ Anonymous 10:24 AM

Sugar is highly addictive, like nicotine, heroin and alcohol. Butter, salt, ramen noodles and diet soda do not contain sugar. All the other items you mention do contain sugar.

Need I remind people that the US has gone to war over sugar and enslaved entire races over sugar. It is debateable whether sugar or oil has caused more violent deaths of innocents.

I pretty much stopped drinking soda a while ago as it doesn't agree with my stomach anymore. I do wonder, though, if they will force the bottled water industry to lower their prices ? How about preventing additional charges on foods simply because the word "organic" is on the label? Also, how about a fine on communites that don't install sidewalks so that children can walk to school? I can't help but wonder if some of this obesity problem isn't the result of children getting less activity in their days from just getting to and from school, going out to play, ride bikes, go to playgrounds, etc.

I don't particularly care about this tax. I drink sugary drinks so infrequently that it won't bother me. I also don't see this as a behavior modification issue. Realistically, people are going to continue to drink soda, so why not put that bad habit to good use?

Will taxing sugary drinks lower consumption, does high taxes on cigaretttes cut them?

What causes a bigger health problem for our nation - cigarette smoking or obesity? The answer is obesity. So why do we tax the hell out of tobacco but refrain from doing the same to foods offering little or no nutritional value?

I agree this is a slippery slope, the proverbial camel's head in the tent. Where will it all stop? I don't like the idea, but if you're taxing tobacco like we do I don't see why you don't tax other unhealthy products. It seems a bit hypocritical.

Who knows, it depends on how much money the mob is stealing from us per purchase.

So since it's perfectly okay to tax this type of "harmful" behavior, let's implement some more taxes and more restrictions:

-Extra 50% tax on all books containing "bad" behavior in it
-Ban all books critical of government policy
-Ban all books promoting "freedom", which is simply anti-government propaganda trying to incite chaos and lawlessness
-Tax all fatty or unhealthy foods to keep health care costs down

Hey why stop at sugar drinks? Let's ban and tax ALL "bad" behavior!

That's the logical progression we're looking at here. Criminal!

You all are idiots. The problem is that the food that is good for you is too expensive in this country and therefore those with little money have little choice but to get the unhealthy food that costs less. When it comes to a choice to buy water or a soda from a machine for the same cost, most people would choose the soda, because it is worth more. Water should be at most half the cost of a soda in a machine. All you elitists need to get in touch with the poor or those who had to work their way up the ladder rather than having a silver spoon showed in their mouths since birth. Besides, Obama said he would not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 and this is who this TAX would hit the most. Another problem with the obesity in this country is caused by the preservatives in our food here like MSG which also changes people's metabolism and causes them to gain weight so you would have to tax that too which would tax almost all food products. Where does it end?
Was Buf., Now Was.,
Although I agree with you that healthy foods being more expensive than bad foods are the major problem with obesity in this country, you know very little about your $1 double cheeseburger since McDonalds raised the price to $1.19 over a year ago. If you do not know about the issue then stop your leftist rantings.
Diogenes,
See my comment above you ignorant liberal.
MildlyMisanthropic,
I actually agree with you for a change.
brad2,
Studies have shown that diet sodas are actually worse for you than the sugary alternative since the chemicals in the diet soda actually alter your metabolism and cause you to gain even more weight. So if you tax the sugary drink you need to double tax the diet drink, but good point on the purchase issue.
V,
Show evidence of your outlandish claim you loon. You are high on something if you think we have gone to war this century over sugar. You really need to seek help.

@ George Washington

You should try reading books sometime, rather than eating them.

@Anon "You should try reading books sometime, rather than eating them."

If you fail to see the parallels and problems in the government taxing or banning things "harmful to our well being", I'd suggest you take some of your own advice and read this short book for starters--only $8!

http://mises.org/store/Economic-Policy-Thoughts-for-Today-and-Tomorrow-P207.aspx

If if you're up for a larger book, I'm sure "Socialism" or "Liberalism" by the same author would also clarify a few things for you.

@ LOL

Who said we went to war this century over sugar? You need a new eyeglass prescription, you senile old man.

As for wars, the Dutch-Portuguese war of the 17thC was over the sugar trade. New-Englanders fought to trade for French sugar (necessary to make rum, and the French were at war with King George) rather than British Caribbean sugar (Google Molasses Act). And lets not go into slavery necessary to run the southern sugar plantations.

Water usually comes out of a tap, not a vending machine. Claiming that the poor only get their fluids from a vending machine or a fast-food franchise indicates someone who is completely out of touch with reality.

Oh, and way to go with alienating everyone by calling us all idiots. That makes you the largest idiot in the room.

Crap is cheap. Sad fact of the food industry here in the U.S. And some artificial sweeteners--aspartame or acesulfame potassium come to mind--are just as bad, if not worse, for you than plain old sugar. How many people justify eating a big, huge fattening meal because they're having a "diet" soda.

I try to avoid conventional sodas and drink either sodas that are just fruit juice and carbonated water or sodas sweetened with cane sugar. It's a lot better than those high-fructose corn syrup concoctions.

I forget where I read it, but I heard a proposal that food should cost a penny a calorie. Would that we could do that.

Or to sum up my complaints briefly:

Say bye bye to what remaining freedom we still have left as the government starts expanding on it's list of "bad" foods, "bad" behaviors, and "bad" information that is "harmful" to us--it's for our own good after all! And don't forget all those laws and privacy invasions that are "needed" to prevent terrorist attacks.

V@11:00: You conveniently missed the point; it is not about sugar. Today it's sugar. Tomorrow it's $1.00 double cheeseburgers. What next? Unless, of course, it's for the CHILDREN! And don't confuse physical addiction with psychological addiction; nicotine, alcohol and heroin are in a different class.

I nearly eliminated them from my diet long ago, knowing they were terrible for your health.
If you're going to tax "sins" on the fun stuff like alcohol and cigarettes, might as well include this one as well, which is at least as devastating from a health viewpoint.

@LOL
Too much sugar today?
Forget your meds?

The beverage industry's commercial about this proposed tax hurting families is a joke. Parents shouldn't be filling their children with soda and sugar drinks anyway! Give me a break! Families with children get a nice heafty tax credit so quit your whining!

@ Anonymous 8:32 AM

The term "sin tax" was devised by politicians, not me. If you have a problem with it, take it up with your elected representatives. And by the way, keep dancing!

@ LOL

Your rants and insults grow more pathetic by the day. Honestly, calling me ignorant is absurd. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Nothing I posted above is false or the product of misinformation. Unless, of course, you reject the fact that nicotine, gambling and high fructose corn syrup are not biological necessities. And don't even get me started on your feigned concern for the poor having to buy bottled water from vending machines. You want water, get it from a fountain. For chrissake, talk about elitist pablum!

@ Anonymous 8:32 AM

The term "sin tax" was devised by politicians, not me. If you have a problem with it, take it up with your elected representatives. And by the way, keep dancing!

@ LOL

Your rants and insults grow more pathetic by the day. Honestly, calling me ignorant is absurd. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Nothing I posted above is false or the product of misinformation. Unless, of course, you reject the fact that nicotine, gambling and high fructose corn syrup are not biological necessities. And don't even get me started on your feigned concern for the poor having to buy bottled water from vending machines. You want water, get it from a fountain. For chrissake, talk about elitist pablum!

LOL is like a lot of people in the party of no and teabaggers. There's no use talking with them. No matter how much facts or logics you have behind you, they don't care. They go la la la and then act like rude children much like their poster child Wilson.