I saw this one coming;

Quote Originally Posted by MtnBiker View Post
True, people do not have to buy cigarettes. However people who do choose to buy cigarettes(or any other legal tabacco product) are force to pay a higher price, not because of a market condition but rather because of a tax.

Consumers do not have to buy candybars or carbonated soft drinks, should the same taxes apply to create revenue?
Senators Consider Soda Tax to Help Fund Health Care Overhaul
The Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul, including a proposal to tax sugary drinks.

The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.

full article


So, why sugary drinks? and also even if such a tax is implemented it still will only provide a fraction of the cost. Ok, what other products can be taxed, how about beef? The UN has told us that cattle are some of the biggest contributors to global warming so not only can feedlots be taxed on the cap and trade scheme the consumer could be tax more for buying food that contributes to higher colesterol levels.

BTW, the 1.2 trillon estimate in conjunction with this year's 1.8 trillion deficit, wow can everybody see where this is headed. Even the class envy crowd should realize that if you taxed all of the "rich" people of this nation at 100% there still isn't enough to pay for everything.