"Bryan" > wrote in message
...
> On Oct 2, 7:12 pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:41:16 -0600, Arri London >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >An advert is running locally complaining about proposed taxes on junk
>> >food. All well and good; it's probably sponsored by the companies who
>> >make soft drinks/sports drinks/flavoured waters.
>>
>> >Unfortunately it starts with a woman whining that it's hard enough to
>> >feed a family these days. Of course it is. However, buying
>> >sugary-artificially-flavoured-coloured drinks must cost her hard-driven
>> >family quite a lot of money. If her food budget is that tight, wouldn't
>> >it make more sense *not* to buy those things, taxed or otherwise?
>>
>> In NY those drinks are already taxed and have been for a very long
>> time... at first blush it appears a great concept to help curb
>> consumption of trashy drinks... taxing doesn't stem purchasing one
>> iota, not of anything.
>
> Research says otherwise. High taxes do reduce sales. If they didn't,
> why would companies spend good money fighting those taxes?
>
> --Bryan

You state "high taxes" How high do they have to go? I doubt 5¢ on a 2 liter
bottle of sode makes a difference, but $2 will.