**Warning, contents are subjective, and don’t be offended. It’s simply my questioning to incite communication**
I’d like you to read a little article that the Post-Gazette posted today about Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. He’s come out in the public and said he supports the Sugary Drink Tax. Now, what’s the Sugary Drink Tax you might say? The Sugary Drink tax is a potential bill that could tax a soft drink per ounce, which has the potential to double the cost of all sugary drinks. Which is a major reason it has come under fire. It’s provided heavy skepticism and even made the Coca-Cola company come out and say that they are being treated like the cigarette companies.
For once, this is a situation where I must stand by the company. I don’t feel that the taxes that could potentially be imposed are worth it. Sure it promotes “healthy” living, and sure it’s for “health reform,” but I don’t trust it. I don’t believe that companies should be forced to have their profits cut into because they make so much money and the government wants a ride because they know they can get some cash.
It’s everything I’m against personally, and that’s all I see from the government. Coca-Cola, by all means has some pretty sugary drinks, along with Pepsi, however both companies provide suitable drinks to the masses that promote healthy living as well as a better alternative to enjoy on a daily basis. So why do we feel the need to take more money from a public company? Tell me it isn’t just because the government is out of ideas regarding health care reform. Tell me it isn’t because the government see an untapped market of potential that they can’t get their grubby little hands on.
Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl today expressed support for Philadelphia’s proposal to enact a tax on sugary drinks.
Pittsburgh estimates it could get $25 million annually from a tax of 2 cents per ounce, Joanna Doven, the mayo’s spokeswoman, said.
Mr. Ravenstahl will discuss the possibility with state lawmakers during a visit next week to Harrisburg, she said.
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has proposed the tax to raise money and promote healthy living.
What’s to say this isn’t treated like the Fair Share Tax? The Fair Share tax around Pittsburgh came under fire as well, and practically still is. Not just because it ruffled anyone feathers, however they ended up using the money on other things outside of the Public Transportation.
The WHOLE reasoning with the Fair Share Tax was to correct the Port Authorities potential bankruptcy, once the Port Authority became stable, the government as always looked for other ways to spend the money, infusing it into road and budget money. Many, including myself was questioning this move, wasn’t this just solely for the Port Authority? Of course, the people that mattered the most in this city felt otherwise, and the money is being spent on transportation as well.
All I’m simply saying is, is that if this new Tax does come into light, and is passed. What’s to stop them from doing other things including everything elsewhere. Taxing things to the point of absurd is the opposite what we were told when it came election time. I guess that really doesn’t matter.
Muhtar Kent the chief executive of Coca-Cola had this pretty funny thing to say back in September of 2009:
“I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink,” Mr. Kent said, according to a report by Bloomberg News. “It if worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.”
Tue, Mar 16, 2010
Political