Coke CEO: Soda Taxes Are Communist Conspiracy To Sap Our Precious Bodily Fluids
Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent has lashed out at a proposed federal tax on soda as "outrageous" and something akin to the policies that landed former Communist regimes in the dustbin of history. "I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink," he said. "If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around."
Kent's statement was in response to comments by President Barack Obama in the latest issue of Men's Health magazine. When asked about taxing soft drinks, the President answered that ‘‘I actually think it's an idea that we should be exploring There's. no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda."
While the U.S. government has, in fact, told consumers what to eat or drink, through everything from prohibition to agricultural subsidies (not to mention the venerable food pyramid), it seems unlikely that a national soft-drink tax will be enacted any time soon. Even local efforts, such as one proposed earlier this year by New York Governor David Paterson, have faced stiff opposition (in Paterson's case, that included a threat by New York-based Pepsico to leave the state if the tax was passed).
We do understand why Comrade Kent is concerned with Soviet-era food policies. After all, it was a backroom deal between Nixon and Khrushchev that got Pepsi into the Soviet market in the 1970s, forcing Coke to wait until the 1980s to compete. When Coke finally became available in Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe, the cadre of executives that helped bring it to the masses was led by none other than Muhtar Kent. Under the same circumstances, we might grow to resent the policies that allowed the competition to get a foothold so much earlier. Resentment could turn to obsession. And then, well, before you know it, you're scrawling acronyms on scraps of paper and grumbling about fluoridation. And we all know where that leads.
Coca-Cola Chief Says Soda-Tax Idea Is ‘Outrageous' [Bloomberg]
Paterson backs down on 'fat tax' [Newsday]
(Photo: telepathicgeorge)
Post a comment
Comments:
"I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink," he said.
I guess he's never heard of the FDA...
That makes no sense...no one is telling you what to eat or drink, it just means you have to pay a bit more to get your sugary carbonated water
The product is still available
There should be a Godwin law that is connected to calling something "communist"
What a tool. The government heavily taxes beer, wine and liquor and we keep buying that, but of course he doesn't care about that since that's not the crack HE is selling.
It doesn't work but that doesn't stop the government from trying.
@jst07: I think it was the stamp taxes, where you had to pay some outrageous amount of money to have any document be "validated" by the Crown. The Tea Party was a way to hit at the British, since their tea trading was a major source of income. In modern times, revolutionaries would have to hit at the U.S. major form of income... Health Care. :-p
I suppose Mr. Kent is in favor of doing away with all those gov't corn subsidies that allow him to sweeten his beverages with dirt cheap corn syrup? That's what I thought, another fair-weather free-marketer; keep the government out of my business unless it's intervention is making me $$, in that case bring on the government!!
(FYI I'm not in favor of a federal tax on soda, but am in favor of taking measures to limit easy access of sugary drinks to kids - ie not selling in schools, limiting advertising directly to kids, etc. Above all though parents need to be responsible to stop feeding their kids junk.)
Oh great! It's not like we don't pay some sort of tax for everything else we purchase/ consume/ utilize etc. What's next? Taxing the number of breaths you take to off set global warming due to methane emissions?
I think our founding fathers would have been pissed if they knew about all these new taxes being invented by local, state, and federal governments.
@FoxCMK: The FDA tells food producers and providers what they can and cannot do. Not quite the same, but the effect is similar. When it actually comes to the people, all the FDA can do is recommend and provide information.
Yeah, well, tell that to people that smoke. I don't smoke, but how much are cigs now? Like $5 a pack or something crazy? That's the government making money off of people's addictions, while simultaneously telling us what to do.
Sure, soda tax might start at 5%, but then 20%, then 100%...etc, etc...
I don't think the government needs to be taxing food and drink any more than it already is. These are staples of life, whether or not someone thinks people should be drinking water and eating fruits or drinking soda and eating a big mac. A person gains sustenance from it.
um, ohio has had a soda tax for quite some time, folks.
Ohio Soda Pop Tax Act (1994)
From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ohio Issue No. 4 (1994) was a measure prohibiting the current wholesale tax on soft drinks and other carbonated non-alcoholic beverages. It passed with 66.4% of votes in favor.
@Underscore_Lysdexia: the powers that be are operating under the theory that unhealthy people are the ONLY ones who drink sodas. which is why some versions of the "sin tax" or "fat tax" don't tax the diet sodas.
I don't drink a lot of soda, but when I do it's not diet. I can't stand the taste of aspartame.
I am all in favor of a VAT that taxes electronics, junk food,alcohol and cigarettes.
@jst07: The Boston tea party was more of a way to protest taxation without representation. The Crown decided to levy a tax against the colonists with the colonists having no representation.
Since we have elected our current congressmen/president, they can tax us however they want to. We have the power to elect someone different the next time around if we don't like it.
@LadyTL:
Actually there is documented price elasticity for cigarette demand; ie raising cigarette prices via taxes will reduce demand for cigarettes, and to a higher degree for youth smoking.
[tobaccocontrol.bmj.com]
A major part of our health care costs come from the fact that so many people drink beverages and foods loaded with HFCS. We need to stop subsidizing corn.
Why does Coca-Cola have a problem with communism? Capitalism works best under dictatorships. Coca-Cola makes a very good percentage of its profits from sales in China.
While agricultural subsidies certainly influence what we eat/drink, the main point of them is less to help people eat better/healthier and more to make money for certain groups of well-connected farmers and agriculture companies.
I'm not sure alcohol is a great comparison, either - it's not so much a food as, well, booze, and it's always been heavily regulated and even banned.
I think the main problem with food taxes is where do you draw the line - if you tax soda, what about diet soda? what about fruit "drinks" that are mostly sugar water? What about fruit juice - it has almost as many calories as soda, and lots of (natural) sugars?
@GearheadGeek: Who says he doesn't like that tax either? Just because he mentions disliking A doesn't mean he likes B.
@winshape: Good idea. Let's elect someone who's opposed to new taxes and who will work on trimming the fat.
Say what? That's never happened? Oh, ok.
@Underscore_Lysdexia: You're right, it's not communist. It's worse than communism. I'm moving to Canada.
@madanthony: there's also an assumption that "unhealthy" people drink soda. i've seen versions of the sin tax that include no tax on diet soda because its the "healthier" choice.
riiiiiight. do you know how many times working at the movie theater I saw (slightly more roundish) people order an extra large popcorn LAYERED WITH BUTTER and then ordered diet sodas? because the diet soda totally compensates for the heart attack in a bag just ordered.
i swear these govt officials have no clue what people actually drink or eat when they make pronouncements about diet.
Chicago already taxes soda at 13.25%, I'm sure soda is taxed regionally other places as well.
if anything, the "tax" might compensate for the subsidies that the corn industry receives to turn their product into HFCS.
@Underscore_Lysdexia: I thought exactly the same thing about the Goodwin-type law for yelling "communist!" I further propose it be applied to the word "socialist" if the person claiming something is socialist doesn't understand what the word means, he just heard call one.
@sponica: No...that's not what they're saying, they're saying that an abuse in this substance is CAUSING people to be unhealthy
Maybe if you weren't the fattest nation in the world, they wouldn't have to tax fatty foods?
Just a thought
@FTWGeek: Oh please spare me, you'll get over it soon enough
if it's that much of a problem, there are other alternatives to drink
it's not like you HAVE to drink Soda in order to live
If that were the case, then yes, it would be a problem
Also, you guys don't even know what's the amount taxed...how about waiting for concrete information (instead of "well we're thinking about it") before flipping out?
@enm4r: No, they do not have any extra junk food taxes in AZ but they should tax it just as much as they do cigarettes and alcohol.
@Underscore_Lysdexia: Taxing unhealthy foods isn't going to suddenly make the U.S. healthier and lose weight. It also likely won't reduce any the amount of major health complications
@squinko: So we can fund a universal healthcare option to treat the crap that comes from consuming foods, drinks and carcinogens that will harm your health. Essentially paying it forward and we could also use this money to pay for higher learning than high school.
Coke and Communism? Old hat. Today is the Pepski Generation.
@Underscore_Lysdexia: Are we the fattest nation because of the food we eat or because of the way our cities are laid out? Our cities are driving, not walking friendly and all the excessive taxes on food and drink is going to do nothing to address that.
@HIV 2 Elway: Not walking friendly? Do you have to cross rickety bridges hung above pools of lava to get to work? That excuse makes no sense!
The food you eat DEFINITELY has an impact
Yep, Chicago has done this. They've also placed extra tax on "candy" as opposed to normal "food". Apparently the only difference is that "food" will include flour in it. So, things that are actually candy, but have flour in it, are considered "food" and therefore is not taxed extra.
@Underscore_Lysdexia: sorry for the double post, but if it's anything like the city I live in, it would be best to walk due to severe traffic
if you live in a farm, sure, a car is needed, but a big city is not driving friendly at all, it's in fact, quite the opposite
Vice taxes and other types of taxes are charge on any number of things. Why does Coke suddenly think this is a Lenin plot? Oh, it is OK to tax other things just not Coke. So only when Coke is threatened with a tax does he Coke become a marcher against communism.
But really, Coke is just carbonated sugar water with a tiny bit of flavoring and color added. Certainly a tax isn't going to kill it.
They need to take "a pause that refreshes" and just chill. They can be such drama queens.
@Underscore_Lysdexia:
I'm going to assume that you honestly don't know this (I gather from your earlier comment that you're Canadian)... but many American cities and suburbs do not have sidewalks, do not have housing close to retail or business districts, and are generally not navigable except by car.
I live in a nice walkable city, do not own a car, and have intentionally built a one-mile walk into my commute. Not everyone is so lucky.
While I don't oppose a soda tax, I do think that it's questionable how much this will actually affect behavior. Up to a point, Coke may simply absorb the tax, and beyond that, unless the tax is particularly onerous, most consumers will likely not modify their behavior much. They may simply reduce purchasing in other areas, depending on how much they want soda.
Or, they may simply start purchasing the store brand soda instead, which could remain cheap enough, depending on their elasticity of demand.
It's not so easy to say, "Tax this a lot!" and then see behaviors change. If we don't see good alternatives to soda, we could see little change. And yes, I realize that for most on this site, water is a great alternative to soda (agree, 100%), but not everyone is going to agree.
@FoxCMK, the FDA exists to ensure that foods meet basic safety safety standards and that drugs are safe and effective, worthy public policy goals. It does not exist to regulate the diets of a free people.
@Underscore_Lysdexia, yes the product is still available, but the purpose of a tax of this nature is to inhibit its consumption by making it more expensive. It's the same deal with highway funding ... the government can't tell a state what its speed limit must be, but it can withhold funding for it. The effect is the same, and once you start down the slippery slope, it's hard to go back. The logical end result is government effectively outlawing whole classes of foods that, eaten in moderation, pose no danger. Let's remember that even water, when excessively consumed, kills. The problem isn't the food ... it's a lack of personal responsibility.
cc82, you make a good point. Government corn subsidies do, in fact, hold down the price of that commodity and should be done away with. But think through what you're saying ... it's not just Coke that benefits from lower corn prices ... it's every consumer who eats corn, anything made from corn, or anything that ate corn, not to mention drives a car (corn ethanol). So while I agree we should eliminate corn subsidies, and all other agricultural subsidies, I fully expect to hear a lot of people screaming for government intervention to hold down food prices because of the "greedy" food companies when such a thing does happen.
And suburbancowboy ... capitalism does not work best under dictatorship. Dictatorships are, by definition, creatures of whim ... the dictator's. Capitalism thrives on stable, predictable market structures. If captialism thrived under dictatorship, why are the economies of the world's dictatorships, say North Korea and Cuba, such unmitigated disasters while the economies of democratic countries flourish?
@Underscore_Lysdexia: A little hostile today aren't we Underscore?
My point wasn't about taxing soda. My point was taxing to force some type of reform. Whatever the reason. Instituting taxes for anything (even if it is justified) is easily abused.
@Underscore_Lysdexia: He's actually got a point. Most people live in suburban areas then (almost all) people in the commute to work via a vehicle, then sit at a desk all day. There are subways, taxis, buses, and even light rails that move us around in the cities.
In Japan, for instance, not very many people own a car that live near the city. People get around by foot and light rail.
Does the food we eat make a difference? Of course. But if a majority of the major U.S. cities were laid out differently, I can guarantee we'd be just a little less overweight.
@sponica: I've stopped eating that "butter" once I found out it had never even been near anything remotely resembling a cow. >.<
@Moosehawk: Adding to my comment, you know that one stupid commercial about the girl who goes to work and eats junk food and makes all these different bad life choices? Then one day she decides to eat a nutrigrain bar or whatever and it leads to all these different healthier life choices.
It's kind of stupid but it has a point to it. If most of America commuted to work by bike or foot, it actually would probably lead to some other healthier life choices for most people. As of now, our lazy habits get the best of us and take over.
No more new taxes, since they can't spend the ones they get already correctly.
I thought a tax on a specific drink (tea) was about the last straw before the Revolution?