Hacker News Reader

Comment by wpietri | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, given that I have received circa 30 mendacious, bullshit-argument mailers during election season for this means I would be tempted to vote for E just to spite its opponents, whether or not this was workable.

But luckily, all their activity convinces me that the proposition will really work. The soda industry has spent FIFTEEN DOLLARS per SF voter on this. [1] This tells me that it's not just about San Francisco. They are scared that if it works here, others will soon follow suit, reducing their profits. So it seems they believe that this sort of tax will have a substantial impact on soda consumption. They're telling me that voting for E means a chance of improving the entire country's health. So I'm definitely in.

[1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Soda-industry-spends-7...

View on HN

I honestly had no strong opinion on the measure prior to the anti-campaign. I do think sugary drinks are a public health menace, but I did not think a tax is a good way to deal with them. Then: anti-E canvassers appeared at my door 3 times, I got about 5 robocalls, and about 10 pounds of glossy fliers in the mail. Clearly somebody with a deeply vested financial interest (not a public interest) doesn't want this to pass. So it definitely makes me consider researching the sugar tax a bit more and even consider voting for it.

I can't find the cite now, but I recently read that something like each 10% increase in the tobacco tax reduces smoking by 4%. so there seems to be good precedent for using taxes to reduce consumption.

If we think of soda like tobacco this makes sense. If tobacco companies are against it, then it probably is a good idea.

But what if the book industry spent $15/SF voter to stop some law that applied to books? Perhaps that law would be harmful to book publishers AND to society overall.

It's amazing how soda companies have come to be seen as evil so quickly.

It's also amazing how quickly diet-related illness have become a national problem. [1]

Say, I see you work for Instapanel. Who paid for this? And who pays for Instapanel in general? The book thing seems like an odd enough comparison that I'm wondering where your interests lie.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag...

We paid for this as a test of instapanel, got respondents off of Craigslist for $10 each. In general, we're building a tool for startups to get feedback like this on their own products.

I went in strongly in favor of Prop E, I came out as convinced that obesity and soda are bad, but less convinced that this law was a good way to address the issue. I'll probably still vote "Yes" on Prop E, but it was fun to hear the other side out.

The most substantiative arguments I've heard against the idea come from the angle of the tax being a regressive "punish the poor" item by being narrowly focused on the cheap added-sugar beverages, while exempting fruit juice and other equivalently concentrated forms. For the populists in the crowd, this is seen as a way to make this particular vice a privileged luxury.

Regardless, I'm going to vote yes; it really should be a luxury, we made a mistake back when we let it become a default option.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com