Increased tax on soft drinks proposed

[rickflag]

---

Kadaghan ma affected ani nga mga sari sari stores. Ang softdrinks ra ba tawon ila usa sa pinaka saleable items labi pas summer. Wa pa ni matagbaw sila Henares nga kita man Pinas ang usa sa pinakataas ug tax sa ASEAN countries. Kulang pa ila kuarta pa i corrupt?

[pak88]

Isa sad na ka factor but maka contribute man sad na siguro ang prevalence sa softdrinks karon. Sauna tubig ra man to imnon sa recess iparis sa banana-Q. Karon kay uban mga canteen naa na mga franchised fastfoods.

Obese kids nowadays bai di na tungod sa softdrinks. Tungod na sa kakuwang ug physical activities sa mga bata karon. Ang uso naman gud nga duwa karon sa computers na, so di na magamit ang muscles. Kami sa una tanan physical, dakop dakop, siatong, bato - lata, high jumps. Mao puera buyag bisan karon di pa ko obese.

[amingb]

Kawaton lang gihapon atong buhis .. mas maau gani dili ta mamayad ug buhis ug puede palang .. proven naman jud na nga kawaton lang unya sige gihapon ta bayad ...

Asa gani tong Drone nga armed with missile nindot to paloparon unya e tira diha sa Congress, Malacanyang ug Senado .. parihas ani



- - - Updated - - -

Kanang softdrinks hinoon maka diabetic na ... dili na maau sa lawas ... pero dili maau patas-an ug buhis kay kawaton lang gihapon sa mga kawatan naa sa goberno

[emow]

The same with sin tax, this proposal is not really about increasing government revenue, but it is more on reducing the consumption rate thereby reducing incidence of obesity and diabetese... health based policy.

Do i agree with it? F×ck no. Lifestyle shouldnt be within the bounds of government policy. First and foremost, government doesnt own our body. So what if we get obese and diabetese? Thats our problem.

Second, if this will push through, this will reinforce lifestyl policy making. Government will intrude personal habits to achieve a perceived ideal. Im not saying being fit is wrong or being obese is good. These are personal choices hence personal responsibility to the consequences.

Third, this will snowball into other lifestyle policies. How about taxing cholesterol? Laziness? Idleness? Salt? Anything is possible. Basically anything that tastes good, and feels good have unwanted effects, therefore the same thought can be applied to them, effectively taxing happiness and merry making.

Ultimately, this proposal has garnered unnecessary attention by our legislators and their supporters. Last time i checked, we are still a Third world country... and the proposal is trying to solve a first world problem.

[epoyking]

sa kadaghan angay buhaton mao ra jud ni mahuna hunaan nila... utoka kaha na!

[battouter]

nya inig kasakit ug diabetes dagan sa gobyerno ngayo libre tambal, utoka ka na!

[beyee]

I told my Dad about this over breakfast,
pirte pamalikas Niya hahaha!

[emberjim]

It is a bill to increase the revenue of the government from tax and to moderate the intake of the population of the said sugary refreshment drink... I myself is a big fan of softdrinks and cigarettes. When Sin Tax was activated I was so damn affected by it, but I never complain why did they do that, for a main reason that they targeted the smoking population including me to refrain smoking cigarette but Big Cigarette Manufacturers came out with a solution and that is to manufacture cheap cigarette ex. Mighty and Fortune.. So the population only switched from a certain brand to a lower priced brand. And I am still a smoker...

Back to the softdrink tax increase issue I consider this as a good idea to lower the risk of the population to being obese and suffer the diabetes since softdrink is one of the main contributor for the said disease. If this happen, Big Softdrink company will simply introduce a much lower priced brand meaning lower the price lower the tax value.. So the business still going.

Regarding to the tax that will be of course shouldered by the consumer, it is our discretion if we still buy those product that will eventually hurt our personal financial attributes. Suma total it is still our decision and discipline whether or not keep the lifestyle that we used to.

My point of view, non-sense as the Sin Tax. not unless they regulate the price tag by not allowing a particular brand priced lower than that of the standard. example... Marlboro is P55.00 per pack, Fortune should not getting any lower price that Marlboro if the really care about the population... What they did, they increase the revenue of the Government so they will have much more money to steal and of course increase the revenue of the tobacco company shouldered by the population who have the patronage of their product. And still those who farm tobacco, I don't know none of them that I know of, get rich - maybe because I don't know any tobacco farmer?LOL..

Who is the culprit? Attack the big Businesses and their allies in the government. Not the Government itself... TY...

[battouter]

people do not understand how devastating softdrinks are to your health. sin-taxes are a must and it has shown time and time again how drastically the numbers of smokers has dropped here in the philippines. you cannot dictate prices because each company spends differently in production and as well as their markup because of their brand name.

[emberjim]

people do not understand how devastating softdrinks are to your health. sin-taxes are a must and it has shown time and time again how drastically the numbers of smokers has dropped here in the philippines. you cannot dictate prices because each company spends differently in production and as well as their markup because of their brand name.

I agree and that is exactly what I am trying to say that the government cannot regulate the price. So smokers will simply downgrade to a much cheaper cigarettes and stay as a smoker.
I also heard the news about the drastic change that you mentioned that smokers statistically dropped here in the Philippines. There might be some truth about it or just a feel good propaganda, but as what I personally observed from the people I know that had been smoking, they simply switch to a much cheaper brand. So if they were serious about the campaign of eliminating or lessen the risk of lung cancer. They will not allow the introduction of much cheaper cigarettes coz it simply defy the core intention of the law they passed, but they did nothing about it and leave it in the ashtray, I mean they leave it astray... And now here is the bill about the Softdrink tax invasion, again if it will become a law Companies will simply make a detour and the government will simply leave us in a bottleneck situation... Momahal na ang Coke ug Pepsi pero naa pa ang barato na sparkle ug sarsi. So kung naay kuarta coke ta, ug medyo lisod aw, fanta.... Hehehe... Again it will defy the core intention no minimize the risk of diseases kay naa pa man lain gihatag na option... Whereas if they will declare it as absolute regardless sa production cost na ang 8oz tag 20 aw magkutaw na lang ta ug icetea... ako ra sad na na POV...