Taxing The Poor And Middle Class

September 17, 2009 / 10:03 am • By Dr. Melissa Clouthier

When you add it up, the Obama Administration is sticking it to the poor and and middle class in a huge way. Consider:

Cigarette taxes are overwhelmingly against the poor and middle class as they’re the ones who smoke.

Now, the government is considering taxing Soda pop. Guess who will be harmed by that tax? There is also this point: Since when is it the government’s blankety-blank business to decide what is and is not good for people? But Democrats love coercion and forcing behavior:

The group’s review of research on the topic, appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine, was released on Wednesday, the same day that Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat, made public his health care reform plan, with an estimated cost of $774 billion over 10 years. The Baucus plan would be paid for by an array of taxes and fees on high-end group insurance plans, drug and medical device makers, and other sources, with no mention of any tax on sugary beverages.

The scientific paper found that a beverage tax might not only raise revenue but have significant health effects, lowering consumption of soda and other sweet drinks enough to lead to a small weight loss and reduced health risks among many Americans.

The study cited research on price elasticity for soft drinks that has shown that for every 10 percent rise in price, consumption declines 8 to 10 percent.

The real goal? Tax revenue. Democrats don’t give a rats ass if people die from obesity but they know a fat hog when they see one and they want a piece of that money.

Cap-n-Tax will cost the average American family $1700/year.

Health care under the Baucus plan would cost a family of four $700/month minimum. That’s much more than some pay right now and nearly $9,000 in new taxes. In addition, the Baucus plan has perverse incentives to hurt single people and single parents with children.

Add this all up and the American family could be paying $15,000 more/year than they are now. Remember, the Bush tax cuts are about to be repealed. All in all, average Americans will be burdened.

More than that, this is all during a recession. So that means that less money will be circulated into the economy. The government will control American purse strings. With less money, job creation will come to a halt. Temporary jobs and lower income jobs will be eliminated. Again, the poor, working class and middle class will be affected most. These plans will create more wards of the state.

But of course, this is all common sense. The population is aging, there are fewer workers and more obligations. The only choice is to reduce obligations or increase taxation on producers. The solution, Democrat-style is to always increase taxation.

And the poor and middle class always get screwed first. Always.

  • O Bloody Hell

    There’s an obvious test to this — does it tax all sodas, or only the ones containing sugar?

    If it taxes anything with aspartame in it, it’s not aiming even vaguely at obesity issues.

    I’ve switched to a mixed diet/sugared consumption (at home, I split it about 60% diet, 40% sugared. When out, I ask the server to do it 50-50), both as a dieting measure and for reduced diabeties concerns (I’m not, but I’m “pre-diabetic”, supposedly). I continue because diet drinks alone still taste like crap.

    But in short, a tax wasn’t needed to lower my consumption. Simple health concerns were adequate.

    That’s not to imply that, in any way, I disagree with the fact that it’s none of the government’s damned business to force me to do as it wills on an issue such as diet.

    Just remember all this when we’re re-writing the Con after the Second Revolution… Many more strictures on what the business of government is.

  • Steve Tessier

    I don’t think the political proponents of the soft drink tax really intend it to pass. I see it as a shake down of Coke, Pepsi, McDonalds, etc. – all very deep pockets. Not to mention the politically powerful corn syrup industry – since drinks are sweetened with corn syrup not sugar. A targeted product sales tax will jeopardize their businesses and they will reasonably react with a big enough increase in their lobbying to kill it. The lobbying will fill the campaign coffers of the politicians who are against it or who are undecided. Once the politicians are done with sweetened soft drinks, I expect they will shake down some other industry.

  • Joe

    I concur with Steve; this isn’t about taxes, but about increasing campaign donations. On the other hand, if the tax does pass, the congressmen won’t be too upset (especially since it will open the door to tax fat, protein and everything else junk science points to as potentially bad for you–expect a federal water tax and not just on bottled water.)

  • smg45acp

    Let’s look at this logically.
    If in fact the Dummyrats are really doing this to get people to stop drinking soft drinks and if people then stop drinking soft drinks, then they will get very little tax revenue from this tax.
    And if they are in the long run not going to get much tax revenue from we must ask, “ Why bother doing it?”
    So logically it has to be stated that this is not about helping people, because of course people are going to continue drinking what they want to drink. Taxes have not stopped smoking or drinking hard liquor.
    This is all about screwing the public for yet another dime.

  • http://earningquickcash.com marco

    Hello

    you should get your blog listed at http://www.bloggingcritic.com , a directory of cool blogs!

    Marco

  • http://www.metalroofingfaq.com Samantha Thomas

    i read somewhere on the internet that long term consumption of Aspartame is not really good for the health. ‘.;