On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 17:22:20 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
> wrote:

>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?

The companies that sell addictive products like crappy soft drinks are
just paying the taxes lip service (public arguing is really just free
advertising for them, extra exposure), they know that taxes doesn't
change how much they sell... were it true a whole lot more people
would have stopped using tobacco a long time ago... booze is heavily
taxed too, no one who drinks alcoholic beverages ever considers the
tax... do women consider the tax on cosmetics, I'll bet my bippee the
thought that lipstick is taxed never enters any female head. Are you
going to drive less miles because tires are heavily taxed, I bet not a
millimeter less. Research has shown over and over that when folks are
urged/nagged to do anything less they do it more.