Mexico’s Soda Tax with Raj Patel: Could it Happen Here?

On July 1, 2014, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to put a regressive soda tax on the November ballot that is even more openly a SLUSH FUND than San Francisco’s regressive soda tax proposal on the November 2014 ballot. It is known as Proposition D in Berkeley.

From: http://noberkeleybeveragetax.com/facts/
FAQs
Under Measure D, will all sugar-sweetened products be taxed the same?
Chocolate milk, 100% juice drinks, alcoholic beverages, and some coffee drinks will not be taxed—no matter how much sugar or how many calories they contain. Organic local root beer will be taxed, but diet soda will be exempt. An iced tea is taxed if it is pre-sweetened, but not if the customer adds the sugar. Confused? You’re not alone.
I thought Measure D is supposed to fund health and wellness programs?
Measure D is written so that the City Council can spend the tax revenue on anything they want. A similar measure in San Francisco specifically dedicates beverage tax funds for health and wellness programs. That is not the case with Measure D.
Is it true Measure D is not about making us healthier; it’s just about raising more money for the city?
That’s true. Lawmakers in San Francisco say funds from their proposed tax measure will go toward health and wellness programs. Berkeley lawmakers just want the tax money for the general fund so they can spend it however they choose—and they want Berkeley taxpayers to pay for it.
Under Measure D, will all stores be treated the same?
No. Some stores will be taxed—others will not. And that’s not the only loophole. Under Measure D, a retailer who picks up his beverages outside of Berkeley won’t pay the tax.
What effect will this tax have on other grocery items?
Measure D may force grocery stores and restaurants to recover the cost of the tax by raising the price of everything they sell—not just soda. That means all types of food could get more expensive.
From: http://noberkeleybeveragetax.com/
Measure D makes exemptions for…
Retailers who pick up their beverages outside of Berkeley
Chocolate milk
100% juice drinks
Alcohol
Some coffee drinks
And more!
*************************************************************************
The Berkeley City Council apparently thinks it can get the University of California students to support them as they are (1) attending this famous anti-workingclass rich folks’ finishing school where contempt for the workingclass is rampant, (2) the plurality of the graduates, 38%, are Asian American, and almost a plurality of the 35,000 students, 27.7% are Asian American, well-known for having no weight problem, and (3) people under age 40, especially well-educated people, are the least likely to have weight problems.

The truth in San Francisco is that there is MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY going to our schools to pay for the BASIC PROGRAM OF NUTRITION AND EXERCISE FOR HEALTHY LIVING in the physical education classes. Thus, both San Francisco and Berkeley are promoting SLUSH FUNDS.

Mexico’s soda and food tax was passed by the legislature, not the voters, and is admittedly a FUND RAISER for the government, in other words, a regressive tax on the workingclass that taxes SODA and FOOD. As of January 2014, Mexico has an 8% tax on ALL JUNK FOOD containing over 275 calories per 100 grams and a peso-per liter tax, 10%, on sugar-sweetened drinks. WE WILL SEE A FOOD TAX TOO IN THE US IF WE DO NOT STOP THEM NOW. See:
http://www.governing.com/blogs/fedwatch/gov-mexicos-new-soda-tax.html

Mexico’s obesity is just a little worse than American obesity, about 32%, and lots of the people who are obese, including this writer, do not eat junk food, do not drink soda pop, and do not have diabetes. See http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/mexico-soda-tax-101645.html

Mexico has other things in common with the US. The life expectancy of Mexico is about the same as that of the American workingclass, the 80% of us who sell our labor for less than $80,000 a year, proving that the United States is not very advanced at all, the reason being that we do not have socialized medicine. The US has the lowest life expectancy and highest infant mortality in the industrialized world because of this lack of socialized medicine.

The leading spokesperson in San Francisco for this slush fund, known as Proposition E, is Supervisor Scott Wiener, the infamous Democratic Party mouthpiece for the anti-tenant, anti-rent control real estate interests, and notorious promoter of the mean-spirited clothing code for San Francisco, which his fellow Democrats on the Board of Stupidvisors, supported. He has spent his time in office doing everything he can to be as nasty as possible to the people of San Francisco. Considering he is a very thin, emaciated appearing 40-something year old (young to this writer), the one thing he has yet to learn is how to enjoy life by following the basic rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The same is true for the other members of the Board of Stupidvisors who approved of putting Proposition E on the ballot: Supervisors Campos, Chiu, Cohen, Farrell and Mar. Supervisor Avalos was excused although he was listed as an original proponent. Voting No were Supervisors Breed, Kim, Tang and Yee. See http://sfgov2.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/elections/candidates/Nov2014/Nov2014_SugarSweetenedBeverages.pdf

All sales taxes, whether on the distributor who will pass it to the retailer who passes it to the consumer, or directly, are by definition REGRESSIVE TAXES ON THE WORKINGCLASS as we pay a larger portion of our income for necessities such as food and beverage. All governments must TAX THE RICH, with the progressive income tax, to pay for all services, and the United States has millions of rich people making over $200,000 a year who can easily afford to pay more for everything we need.

Saying what it means to me, No on E in San Francisco and No on D in Berkeley.