Lincolnite

I think it’s kind of bogus.

However, the law pertaining to soft drinks definitely needs to be clarified one way or another. Do you ever buy bottled pop? Do you notice that you do pay tax at some places, but not at others? 20 oz. bottle of Coke at Super Saver, I think no tax. Same bottle of Coke at convenience store, taxed. Buy it at a restaurant in a bottle, and maybe pay tax, maybe not. Why?

I once owned a brick and mortar business in Lincoln. We sold bottled pop out of a cooler. I had a CPA who was one of the best in the city at understanding the tax code. She looked into it, and never could fully decide if I should collect sales tax on it or not. It’s a gray area. It should be black or white.

I did charge tax, by the way.

Without making any comment about the substantive issue at hand, I can at least alleviate your fear regarding the “or”. Statutory interpretation requires “or” to be read as “and/or”.

Silly legalese 😉

Seriously though, thanks for the info!

The current law requires tax to be applied “for prepared food and food sold through vending machines”. See 77-2704.24, which is Section 3 of Avery’s bill.

So if I have a cooler that you have to open and reach into, such as the ones by the checkouts at Target, is that a vending machine? I say no.

It still doesn’t answer why you pay taxes for it in one locale and not another.

If we don’t raise revenue to deal with childhood obesity, how do we tackle the problem? All the medical evidence shows that our kids are becoming heavier and less healthy. Do we respond to the problem by taking revenue from other health programs to treat childhood obesity? I think it is foolish to do nothing. (The number one reason recruits are rejected from military service is they are too overweight). Overweight children become overweight adults with diabetes, heart failure, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc. None of those conditions are easy or inexpensive to treat. I think we need to tackle childhood obesity as a serious health issue and I am willing to pay a tax on my sodas as long as the money is funneled to effective programs to reduce childhood obesity.

I think you raise valid points, but when do we really ever effectively see money raised for a specific thing go to that specific thing, other than the current arena tax?

Don’t these additional revenues go into some huge slush fund, and then end up going to pay for roads or reduced lunches or some other program?

You are dead-on with the info about childhood obesity. It’s an epidemic with adults, too. That’s why I am in the fitness business again to some degree. However, merely charging a tax on soda isn’t going to solve much.

Kids need more PE in school, not less. Parents and caregivers need to take an active role in what their kids eat and drink. I’d rather rely on that the government. Some personal responsibity has to come into play.

I struggle with my weight and have to stay on it all the time. My whole family did. I keep a sharp eye on my kids. They drink some pop, they eat candy, but they do it in moderation, and there are no signs of obesity or any diseases at all. The first sign of one of them being overweight, the sweets will be cut down or cut out. I encourage them to play outside, to ride scooters, bikes, etc. They play soccer. They run.

Honestly, how often do you see an obese kid with healthy, fit parents? Not often.

It pains me to see heavy kids. It truly does. I feel their pain. I just don’t know that taxing Coke and Pepsi will have a direct impact.

You’re making two big assumptions that aren’t necessarily warranted. First, you assume that because childhood obesity is a growing problem (pun intended), the government must throw fresh money at it. It’s not a given that government putting money into the problem is the best (or even a good) solution. Neither is it a given that we need new government money, as opposed to repurposing existing funds or reorganizing existing programs to include a childhood obesity focus. There are other options. Before putting new money into the problem we need to first ensure there aren’t more efficient alternatives available.

Second, you assume that a pop tax is an efficient way to bring about change. It’s not. The tax very likely will raise new revenue, that’s true. But experiences in other communities and states suggest that the actual effect on obesity rates will be virtually null. It’s a “do something” tax, in other words. That is, it’s a reaction by people that we need to “do something” to address a problem.

If Senator Avery can somehow make the case that his pop tax will actually work where others have failed, then great. Let’s trim a little chubbiness off Nebraska’s kids. But nothing about his approach suggests he’ll have any more success than any of the other failed efforts around the country.

It is a lifestyle problem not a soda problem.  It is simple why american’s are getting fatter…we are lazier than ever before.  very few children work on farms like they did many decades ago.  Most of our entertainment these days, video games, computers, tv…well you are just sitting there.  Kids do not “go outside” and play any more.  This is the issue…of course you don’t burn as many calories or stay in shape if you are sitting on your ass.  Soda has been around since the late 1800’s.  And got news for ya…it was not even available as a diet soda til last 3 decades.  But the TV, internet, video games use has EXPLODED over the last 3 decades.  There is your issue.  We are breeding a generation of couch potatoes is the main issue.  Nothing more and nothing less.  And taxing something in the name of it being bad for you does not affect use, folks KNOW cigarettes are horrible for them but they smoke them anyhow.  Our state senators need to focus on infrastructure and basic public safety and stop meddling in our lives.  We know soda is not the best thing for us but neither are Tostino’s party pizzas either.