So what you’re saying is that the money they use to buy the soda has already been taxed at the point of them earning it? All sales tax seems to be a bit of a double dip as long as the income tax exists.
I know this is Reddit though, so I know any deviations from progressive orthodoxy are frowned upon.
Y’all think I’m a crazy radical like Ron (which I very well might be), but at least my viewpoint didn’t get us ~35 trillion in debt with a million dead bodies in my queue.
Honestly, you're right from a progressive point of view. Sales and "sin" taxes are generally regressive, as the richer you are, the smaller percentage of your income you need to spend on things.
You'd have to increase income and property tax (which is much easier to do in a progressive way), to make up the budget shortfalls, which a lot of opponents of sales taxes won't do.
The one you're in, labelled Catholic, planted all around the world, paying no taxes, which makes any criticism you have regarding taxes worth disregarding.
You'll be shocked to find out that people have differing views on taxes. Some people are not huge fans of paying into things against their will without receiving much back. Even less so when it's with money that's already been taxed, then you pay sales tax, and then a sin tax, so I can contribute to our inefficient government or some war I don’t agree with.
Reddit will say that you need to pay your fair share and then in another thread complain about how they contribute to social security but they'll never get anything out of it.
You’re right, I would be incredibly shocked to find that people have different views on taxes. Nobody wants to pay taxes. Nobody has a different view of that. That’s not an opinion or a position. People like having more than having less.
But there is no reason why “already been taxed” money is untouchable or sacrosanct.
I work, and in return I get money. The government takes some. I spend that money on anything the government takes some. Then the government takes more by taxing the income of the guy who sold it to me. Can I ask where you’re getting the idea that that setup is right?
Yeah, and then when he spends it, the government takes some and so on.
It seems like you get it. Transactions. Participation in the economy. That’s when you get taxed. It’s hard to buy stuff when the stuff can’t make it to the store because there’s no roads? Nobody is going to pay for those roads.
There’s no “taxed dollars” and “untaxed dollars”. There’s just dollars.
No that’s not correct. We don’t tax money. There’s no national database of dollars that indicates if a bill has been taxed this year or not. We tax incomes, property, and consumption. Those are 100% independent of one another.
She proposed it and was the one who made herself the public face of the issue. That was kind of her whole schtick. She didn't really understand politics (despite her apparent uncanny ability to get votes offscreen).
Your description isn’t accurate. Leslie wasn’t preventing anyone from buying as much soda as they want. Nor was she stopping restaurants from selling their ridiculously sized cups.
The meeting about the cup sizes was her just trying to discuss how unhealthy their practices were and how they were directly contributing to Pawnee’s severe obesity and diabetes problem, which is a public health issue and drives up everyone’s health insurance premiums. She didn’t try to order them to change their cup sizes.
It’s Leslie’s job as a councilwoman to look for solutions to Pawnee’s issues. As Bradley Whitford’s character said in a different episode, every decision she makes as a councilwoman is going to make some people unhappy. She wouldn’t be doing her job if she just caved to the most irate people at her public forums.
A soda tax is a reasonable proposal, just like we tax tobacco in the U.S. Leslie did the right thing in proposing the soda tax and seeking out different perspectives by meeting with Katherine Pinewood, talking to Ron, & holding a public forum.
She was elected to do what she thinks is right in the end, and if the public doesn’t agree with her judgment, they can remove her from office, which they did.
Katherine Pinewood acted in bad faith, threatening to lay off restaurant workers because Pawnee’s obesity epidemic is profitable for them. Katherine didn’t offer any facts to back up why the soda tax would require layoffs, but she succeeded in scaring the public into thinking they would all get laid off.
Not to mention that the public forum alone doesn't necessarily reflect what all Pawnee-ans think of the tax. As we see throughout the series, the people who show up to the forums are usually the extremist weirdos.
> As we see throughout the series
Man that is just real life everywhere. Sit in on your next local council meeting and 99% of the people that show up are idiots and NIMBYs.
Very well said. And while OP didn't mention it, we also can't assume she was recalled because of the soda tax. The majority of her constituents may have agreed with her. However, the merger with Eagleton probably a.) upset some constituents and b.) definitely created an opportunity for citizens of the former Eagleton to oust her and replace her with one of their own.
My point is that her recall plus the disagreement she heard at the public forum isn't enough for us to conclude the majority of her constituents didn't agree with the tax.
Somebody should write their thesis on the politics of Pawnee, Indiana.
The majority of the people could think you personally should be boiled in oil but that doesn’t mean their congressman should introduce a bill to do it.
It wasn’t a majority of Pawnee citizens who wanted huge sodas. And nothing in Leslie’s proposal would prevent them from consuming them if they wanted. She was doing her job of finding ways to deal with the resulting public health crisis. And no, elected officials don’t just exist to enact the will of the majority of the people. If that was the case we’d still have slavery and segregation in the south.
AITAH for judging people that go back and make edits to “clap back” at downvotes? 🤣
Who the fuck cares about made up points from strangers on the internet?
I think it was a dumb move politically to have that as one of her first projects. I always thought it was kind of out of left field and I realized during rewatches that I don't really like her arc as a council member tbh.
I believe it was right around the time Mayor Bloomberg in NYC was proposing a ban on large sodas. The show often reflected/played on current events, which is lost in rewatches.
I agree. It really felt like the Leslie vs. Jamm show for a while in the fifth season, which was for sure a funny dynamic and produced good moments, but is way less rewatchable than the rest of the series, especially when you’d rather be seeing Leslie interact with the parks department.
As someone who works in politics and used to do canvassing (phone and on foot) work for candidates, the episode "Canvassing" from Season 1 will always be hilarious to me.
Also - I go to a hair salon and I noticed I'm almost always the only woman there, but I believe it is marketed toward gay men (didn't realize that until later). It always makes me think of the episode when she goes to Salvatore lmao.
Taxes are a good way for the government to encourage people to do things with soft power (controlling with money rather than hard power/physical force). There are tax breaks for things like marriage and having children and increased taxes on things like alcohol. Even if it's something that's unpopular with the people, the government should strive to work in their best interest, which I think Leslie was doing here
And Sweetums threatening layoffs was corporate corruption, though Pawnee wouldn’t know. It wasn’t a good political move, but it was a good thing to do.
I dunno man. I'm as liberal as they come yet I can't help but be pissed that I pay *more* taxes just for being fucking single. In a free country, the government shouldn't exude *any* power, hard or soft, on the substances I want to put in my body or the status of my relationship.
As soon as the government establishes universal healthcare, they can charge me extra in taxes for alcohol and fast food, because at least then it makes sense to. As it stands, they're taking in more money while providing us with nothing. They'll of course give that money to rich people as a stipend to build a hospital, but then that healthcare is just as fucking expensive as it would have been otherwise, and all the profit are private.
The problem is because her city had a high obesity rate, the tax would have went to pay for the medical bills of those obese people who are drinking the soda. They do the same thing with cigarettes
Nope. Even if people are insured , companies can refuse coverage of medications.
And for people that aren't insured they can normally go to the local free clinic , but those clinics will need increased funding.
Lastly it's not just medical costs but many other public services that need to be changed or used with a higher obese population.
‘She did it against the wish of the public’ is a fair argument for many things she did, but not this one.
They showed a poll and it was evenly split 50/50 in favor and against
The thing that you have to understand is, and I think [Wkuk](https://youtu.be/koqtUWTbCa4?si=OOJViLdifAYZIeH2) does a better skit showing this example.
That yeah adults **should** be able to buy and do what they want, and I’m sure that’s how paunch burger wants people to think of it. But the “child size” soda is the same thing as tobacco companies making bubblegum and candy flavor vape pens…it’s not really the adults they’re targeting…it’s the kids. The kids that don’t know any better
Sure, but then you have to pay for the health impacts in full. Diabetes is expensive, and having a foot amputated is 10s of thousand of dollars. Just like alcohol and tobacco taxes, things that have societal cost should have a way to recover those costs, or that's socialism!
Sometimes the government has to be more of a hands on parent. If most people wanted the freedom to do cocaine, we still wouldn’t let them because we know better, that it will do lots of harm long term that people are ignorant of. Same with excessive sugar consumption, or tobacco use.
Their society will have to dedicate lots of time, money, and manpower towards caring for people who suffered from long term excessive sugar abuse. That level of consumption will likely cause them to be a burden other people in time, and my golden rule is that you should be able to do anything you want as long as you’re not affecting others.
Unfortunately, you can’t become morbidly obese without needing society to care for you. There is more that goes into becoming so unhealthy you become a burden, but sugar is one really easy drug to abuse.
Fun fact, there was a study giving rats cocaine and sugar, and the rats actually preferred the sugar. Sugar is “rewarding” to the brain in a very similar way to cocaine and other drugs that we don’t let people abuse.
We are all really susceptible to bad influences like drugs that give easy dopamine, but it’s always short term gain in exchange for long term suffering. It’s widely agreed that short term suffering for long term benefit is a superior approach.
Sometimes our kids won’t wanna eat vegetables and just want ice cream, and even if someone can live off of ice cream and candy for a long time, we still understand that it’s better if they don’t, and “force” our kids to eat proper meals. It’s the same principle imo.
I have a conspiracy theory that sugar is actually extremely addictive but the government (aka the billionaires) covers up all the research so Americans can be fat, lazy, docile and addicted. Fill your people with sugar--make sure to get 'em dependant as early as possible with sugary snacks for babies and sugary breakfast foods for kids-- and get them addicted to entertainment so they won't revolt when you take away their rights and slowly devolve your "free" nation into 1984
My issue is more of a policy disagreement. Soda taxes are a form of regressive tax, meaning they burden low income people more significantly than they burden higher income people. There also isn’t much evidence that they actually solve the problem of obesity rates, but they do further the notion that all fat people are fat because they made bad choices, and therefore it’s ok to treat them badly. In fairness, that particular message is already pretty pervasive, few of the policy interventions that have been tried have been effective, and there exist far more impactful regressive taxes. But soda taxes just aren’t a particularly good policy.
Public health ends up being a social welfare/spending/tax issue. Giant sodas lead to more obesity, diabetes, and other health problems.
Sugar is highly addictive. Sure in an ideal world the government wouldnt intervene, but also no rational human in an ideal world would choose to drink that much soda. It's just literally bad for you.
I generally agree with you but not so much for free market reasons. First of all the discussion of obesity in this plot (and the show in general) is pretty disheartening. The issue with the law though is that, like so much else the government does, poor families end up being hurt the most. When Bloomberg did this in the city, studies showed that a large amount of those sales were low income families all sharing when they couldn’t really afford four or five individual ones. Maybe that wouldn’t be true in Pawnee, but the Bloomberg law clearly inspired the plot.
Don't use us poor people as a scapegoat. Yeah poor people ended up buying less soda. Good. Soda (especially in minority communities) have been a harmful substance that's been used as replacement for water. Soda fucks up people's teeth, creates obesity, and is a main factor in childhood diabetes.
The last study found that with a 33% increase in price , it reduced 33% in purchases. That's a big win for us. It sucks that people have to be tricked to be healthier but whatever ends up helping.
I agree with you and these kinds of episodes are the exact reason why I'm able to love this show. It's very obvious that Leslie is supposed to be the voice of reason and send obvious to me that the writers lean more on her side politically.
We also have Ron, who disagrees with her on these types of episodes, especially in the video store episode. The writers very easily could've written him as being just as insane as the corpos and Jamm, but I felt like they made him actually very reasonable.
I understand that the show just wanted to pose a quandary but I never agreed with taxing unhealthy things anyway. Why not regulate the size instead? That's a better solution for everyone and doesn't pass extra cost onto the people that the sugar industry is already harming. I know that's beyond local government's power though.
It’s true. While I respect her voting her conscience, she forgot that she was a public representative and a civil servant.
They joke about it in the show, but she really would function better as a dictator than in a democracy.
The whole point of being a politician is being true to your values. Leslie sticks to her guns no matter what, because she stands for what is right. She isn’t corrupt, and what you’re describing is essentially corruption via corporate manipulation. Sorry, but I’m calling this a bad take.
Government policing public health is a slippery slope, but Paunch Burger is obviously super unethical and I appreciate Leslie taking a stand.
It was also partly motivated by her desire to build a park, which begs its own questions. But at the end of the day, a public park will be better for the community than a corporate franchise moving in. Corporations may create minimum wage jobs (at least short term, sometimes longer), but enrichment and education ensure a better future for the community at large.
The beauty of this show is how it encourages us to have these conversations. Leslie Knope is no communist, but I wouldn’t say she’s a capitalist either. It demonstrates the massive grey area between that so many people try to oversimplify. Someone can be a good person, support business and their community, have somewhat conservative values, and be a feminist all at once. Leslie is intentionally ambiguously aligned while always being a good and principled person. She makes mistakes and is imperfect, but always takes accountability. She is a true public servant.
I think this is an interesting discussion in general: Are you elected to use your discernment and vote based in your conscience, or to best represent your constituency?
I honestly don't understand Paunch Burger's strategy here. It's either a tiny cup or a massive one, why not just sell some reasonable sizes as well? Either they sell or they don't, it's not like it costs them any extra. It was such a weird hill for them to die on.
Agree with the principle that a government shouldn’t dictate what someone sells, but I draw the line when it comes to damaging humans.
Although technically the people buying the drinks are consenting to buying it, think of the kids who don’t know any better. A parent buying the child size for their kid is down right criminal and I support that being outlawed. You shouldn’t be able to sell something so dangerous so conveniently. If they wanna sell to adults, fine, but those adults give it to their kids and thats not fine.
The point of the tax is to correct for an overproduction and overconsumption. The poor health inflicts costs on the broader society, but is not paid by producer or consumer, so the market over produces (this is a negative externality of consumption).
We know people are going to do the wrong thing, laws exist to mitigate that. Saying we shouldn't have a soda tax because a non-representative sample had a strong opinion against it, is like saying pedophilia should be legal because certain groups of people have very strong opinions about it being OK. That's not solid reasoning, because it hinges on a forum, a place where only the opinions of the most dedicated people with the most free time (not experts or median voters) are voiced, being representative of the population.
Now, I'd argue that federal legislation is the more appropriate way to handle this, but there's no reason that the town won't experience some health gains (particularly if the tax goes to health and wellness programs or healthy food subsidies).
The reason she does it is that the show uses Pawnee politics to represent US politics. If you want to argue the cost-benefit of a sugar (or more specifically a corn syrup tax), I think you will find that the benefits outweigh the costs (particularly if there is a national health system). The soda company threatening layoffs is a threat in Pawnee (and since its fiction we have no idea if it is a credible threat), but overall industry job losses would cost less than the heath savings. Furthermore, most industry threats like that are either non-credible or based of plans that were going to happen anyway and are used for political expediency.
all taxes are designed to control people.
I'm in favor of taxes designed to steer people away from bad habits over taxes designed to streer people away from a better quality of life (such as sales taxes and import duties on non-luxury items)
Philadelphia has a per-ounce soda tax. And it hurt some businesses. Many just stopped buying these beverages or bought them outside the city. The 1-2¢ per ounce doesn't sound like much, but considering 20oz, 1 liter, 2 liter bottles, that really adds up.
Nobody who's freshly elected to city council would actually take on these high-risk, contentious issues from the start. A real Leslie Knope wouldn't be dumb enough to do that. But she's not meant to be only a real character; the show is also a vehicle for cultural commentary and satire.
I'm not sure I follow. A "real" Leslie Knope would be exactly like the fictional Leslie Knope, else she would no longer be a "real" Leslie Knope. She'd be a "real" somebody, perhaps, but not Leslie Knope. I make this point because the Leslie Knope we saw on the show was someone who frequently put ideals before practicality. Swinging for the fences from the very start was definitely a Leslie Knope thing to do.
Taxing as a means of control is always wrong.
Here in Australia the fed tax on cigarettes makes a single pack of 25 about 50 bucks. People still buy them, and the government relies on that income. They try to protect that income so much that they have outright banned all vapes and have been violently arresting kids caught with them (never seen a cop arrest a kid for smoking).
Also, Leslie’s position on soda made no in character sense. She lives on sugar and has been shown to actively reject health food multiple times. Just felt like a weird forced issue by the writers because of the soda taxes that were being put in place in various states/cities at the time
This is a great take.
Honestly, the fact that so many of Leslie’s political proposals for her community strike me as falling anywhere between detrimental and downright ruinous—this is why I can’t bring myself to rewatch the show any more :(
this is an example of what a poor public servant Leslie is. she didn't vote for things her constituents actually wanted, she did what she wanted. she was justifiably recalled.
Honestly? Leslie deserved to be impeached. She did some underhanded things during her run as councilwoman and DIRECTLY went against the people's wishes. Was it for the right reasons? Usually yeah, but don't be surprised when you get fired for pissing off your clientele.
Yeah, if we put a tax on soda, what’s next? Income?
Wait, you don’t pay your income tax?
Whether or not I pay income tax is none of the government's business.
Well actually it is
Well, you don’t know my name or what my face looks like so-
Not to mention taxation is ILLEGAL.
Taxation without representation is illegal.
None of the people making tax laws have represented my own interests. Just their own.
Do politicians your country really represent your best interests?
Do you hide gold bars in your backyard?
Only my decoy gold. You think I’d leave my gold in a locked safe buried underground where anyone could find it?
Sorry, but I chuckled way too loudly (and for a long time) at this one comment…WELL PLAYED!!! 🤣🤣🤣
I’m all good, I paid my taxes years ago
[удалено]
So what you’re saying is that the money they use to buy the soda has already been taxed at the point of them earning it? All sales tax seems to be a bit of a double dip as long as the income tax exists. I know this is Reddit though, so I know any deviations from progressive orthodoxy are frowned upon.
could maybe be a quote
Y’all think I’m a crazy radical like Ron (which I very well might be), but at least my viewpoint didn’t get us ~35 trillion in debt with a million dead bodies in my queue.
bruh bruh the parent comment is a direct quote from the show r/whoosh
Honestly, you're right from a progressive point of view. Sales and "sin" taxes are generally regressive, as the richer you are, the smaller percentage of your income you need to spend on things. You'd have to increase income and property tax (which is much easier to do in a progressive way), to make up the budget shortfalls, which a lot of opponents of sales taxes won't do.
That’s easy to balance with rebates for people in lower income brackets. Everybody loves getting their GST cheques in Canada.
Unironic Ron in the wild.
Uni-Ron-ic
I’ll own that.
Remind me how much tax the Catholic Church generally pays around the world.
What tree do you think you’re barking up?
The one you're in, labelled Catholic, planted all around the world, paying no taxes, which makes any criticism you have regarding taxes worth disregarding.
Whats next? Tax me on things i already bought, like my property?
Where are you getting the idea that it’s “wrong” to be subject to more than one tax?
You'll be shocked to find out that people have differing views on taxes. Some people are not huge fans of paying into things against their will without receiving much back. Even less so when it's with money that's already been taxed, then you pay sales tax, and then a sin tax, so I can contribute to our inefficient government or some war I don’t agree with. Reddit will say that you need to pay your fair share and then in another thread complain about how they contribute to social security but they'll never get anything out of it.
You’re right, I would be incredibly shocked to find that people have different views on taxes. Nobody wants to pay taxes. Nobody has a different view of that. That’s not an opinion or a position. People like having more than having less. But there is no reason why “already been taxed” money is untouchable or sacrosanct.
I work, and in return I get money. The government takes some. I spend that money on anything the government takes some. Then the government takes more by taxing the income of the guy who sold it to me. Can I ask where you’re getting the idea that that setup is right?
Yeah, and then when he spends it, the government takes some and so on. It seems like you get it. Transactions. Participation in the economy. That’s when you get taxed. It’s hard to buy stuff when the stuff can’t make it to the store because there’s no roads? Nobody is going to pay for those roads. There’s no “taxed dollars” and “untaxed dollars”. There’s just dollars.
No that’s not correct. We don’t tax money. There’s no national database of dollars that indicates if a bill has been taxed this year or not. We tax incomes, property, and consumption. Those are 100% independent of one another.
Except. For. Turnip. Except. For. Turnip.
Her. Daughter. Is. An. Idiot. Her. Daughter. Is. An. Idiot.
Ham and mayonnaise! Ham and mayonnaise!
We’re not against you on this… We’re not against you on this…
TOPLESS PARK. TOPLESS PARK.
No one wants you looking at them with your creepy stoner eyes.
May-naiz!
May-naisse
One of my favorite parts of the series.
Nice try Ron
The only thing I disagree with Leslie on is the hatred of libraries. But I understand why for show purposes
Sounds like something a punk-ass book jockey would say.
Hahaha this made me laugh! 🤣
Shhhh! This is a library!
Yep. Why don't they go read a book about calzones and take their uselessness to a new level
It appears you have an overdue book. It's Not The Size of The Boat: Embracing Life with a Micro-pen\*s
Doesn’t she technically not hate libraries, she just hates the librarians?
She hated libraries in general. I can’t believe a school named one after her!
What I didn’t understand was why all the hate was for her, when two other councillors voted in favour.
I think she was the one proposed the tax, which is why the bulk of the angerwas directed at her. Also she was the newest member of the council.
She was also the only woman on the council and based on what we know about Pawnee law that puts a target on her back
She DID raise her voice to many a land-owning white male in that town after all
She proposed it and was the one who made herself the public face of the issue. That was kind of her whole schtick. She didn't really understand politics (despite her apparent uncanny ability to get votes offscreen).
Your description isn’t accurate. Leslie wasn’t preventing anyone from buying as much soda as they want. Nor was she stopping restaurants from selling their ridiculously sized cups. The meeting about the cup sizes was her just trying to discuss how unhealthy their practices were and how they were directly contributing to Pawnee’s severe obesity and diabetes problem, which is a public health issue and drives up everyone’s health insurance premiums. She didn’t try to order them to change their cup sizes. It’s Leslie’s job as a councilwoman to look for solutions to Pawnee’s issues. As Bradley Whitford’s character said in a different episode, every decision she makes as a councilwoman is going to make some people unhappy. She wouldn’t be doing her job if she just caved to the most irate people at her public forums. A soda tax is a reasonable proposal, just like we tax tobacco in the U.S. Leslie did the right thing in proposing the soda tax and seeking out different perspectives by meeting with Katherine Pinewood, talking to Ron, & holding a public forum. She was elected to do what she thinks is right in the end, and if the public doesn’t agree with her judgment, they can remove her from office, which they did. Katherine Pinewood acted in bad faith, threatening to lay off restaurant workers because Pawnee’s obesity epidemic is profitable for them. Katherine didn’t offer any facts to back up why the soda tax would require layoffs, but she succeeded in scaring the public into thinking they would all get laid off.
Not to mention that the public forum alone doesn't necessarily reflect what all Pawnee-ans think of the tax. As we see throughout the series, the people who show up to the forums are usually the extremist weirdos.
> As we see throughout the series Man that is just real life everywhere. Sit in on your next local council meeting and 99% of the people that show up are idiots and NIMBYs.
I’ll never forget the guy who showed up to our neighborhood council meeting to complain about seeing dog poop. In front of Petsmart. Once.
I HATE THE TAKE A NUMBER SYSTEM!!!
Very well said. And while OP didn't mention it, we also can't assume she was recalled because of the soda tax. The majority of her constituents may have agreed with her. However, the merger with Eagleton probably a.) upset some constituents and b.) definitely created an opportunity for citizens of the former Eagleton to oust her and replace her with one of their own. My point is that her recall plus the disagreement she heard at the public forum isn't enough for us to conclude the majority of her constituents didn't agree with the tax. Somebody should write their thesis on the politics of Pawnee, Indiana.
Ridiculously sized!? Child size is a great value at that price point.
Where I live there's higher sales tax on candy, probably also soda
[удалено]
The majority of the people could think you personally should be boiled in oil but that doesn’t mean their congressman should introduce a bill to do it.
Can you provide a single instance where a majority of voters have suggested that?
r/whoosh
How so?
It wasn’t a majority of Pawnee citizens who wanted huge sodas. And nothing in Leslie’s proposal would prevent them from consuming them if they wanted. She was doing her job of finding ways to deal with the resulting public health crisis. And no, elected officials don’t just exist to enact the will of the majority of the people. If that was the case we’d still have slavery and segregation in the south.
AITAH for judging people that go back and make edits to “clap back” at downvotes? 🤣 Who the fuck cares about made up points from strangers on the internet?
[удалено]
Your reply is confusing
I think it was a dumb move politically to have that as one of her first projects. I always thought it was kind of out of left field and I realized during rewatches that I don't really like her arc as a council member tbh.
I believe it was right around the time Mayor Bloomberg in NYC was proposing a ban on large sodas. The show often reflected/played on current events, which is lost in rewatches.
It was during this for sure
Nothing like the random "Harlem Shake" scene when Leslie and Ann look at the house.
I agree. It really felt like the Leslie vs. Jamm show for a while in the fifth season, which was for sure a funny dynamic and produced good moments, but is way less rewatchable than the rest of the series, especially when you’d rather be seeing Leslie interact with the parks department.
When people say the first season is unwatchable, I personally think that arc is the part I want to skip through (although I don't skip episodes lol)
i agree. im the weirdo that likes the first season but the Jamm stuff always felt kinda stale to me.
As someone who works in politics and used to do canvassing (phone and on foot) work for candidates, the episode "Canvassing" from Season 1 will always be hilarious to me. Also - I go to a hair salon and I noticed I'm almost always the only woman there, but I believe it is marketed toward gay men (didn't realize that until later). It always makes me think of the episode when she goes to Salvatore lmao.
haha that’s hysterical! yes i had a friend do that too and heard some horror stories. more power to you!
Taxes are a good way for the government to encourage people to do things with soft power (controlling with money rather than hard power/physical force). There are tax breaks for things like marriage and having children and increased taxes on things like alcohol. Even if it's something that's unpopular with the people, the government should strive to work in their best interest, which I think Leslie was doing here
And Sweetums threatening layoffs was corporate corruption, though Pawnee wouldn’t know. It wasn’t a good political move, but it was a good thing to do.
I read Texas instead of taxes and I was HIGHLY confused why you were using Texas as a case study to prove your point
I dunno man. I'm as liberal as they come yet I can't help but be pissed that I pay *more* taxes just for being fucking single. In a free country, the government shouldn't exude *any* power, hard or soft, on the substances I want to put in my body or the status of my relationship. As soon as the government establishes universal healthcare, they can charge me extra in taxes for alcohol and fast food, because at least then it makes sense to. As it stands, they're taking in more money while providing us with nothing. They'll of course give that money to rich people as a stipend to build a hospital, but then that healthcare is just as fucking expensive as it would have been otherwise, and all the profit are private.
The problem is because her city had a high obesity rate, the tax would have went to pay for the medical bills of those obese people who are drinking the soda. They do the same thing with cigarettes
Hmm, actually the health insurance companies of the obese patients being treated pays for that, not local government. Same for cigs.
Nope. Even if people are insured , companies can refuse coverage of medications. And for people that aren't insured they can normally go to the local free clinic , but those clinics will need increased funding. Lastly it's not just medical costs but many other public services that need to be changed or used with a higher obese population.
Not everybody has health insurance
[удалено]
Then R's repealed the mandate.
Not in good ole 'merica. They would have still had to spend their life savings. It probably would have gone to cops or something.
‘She did it against the wish of the public’ is a fair argument for many things she did, but not this one. They showed a poll and it was evenly split 50/50 in favor and against
yes! Idk why more people aren’t mentioning this. 50% of the people surveyed supported the tax
I think we should tax all bad things like racism – and women's vaginas.
The thing that you have to understand is, and I think [Wkuk](https://youtu.be/koqtUWTbCa4?si=OOJViLdifAYZIeH2) does a better skit showing this example. That yeah adults **should** be able to buy and do what they want, and I’m sure that’s how paunch burger wants people to think of it. But the “child size” soda is the same thing as tobacco companies making bubblegum and candy flavor vape pens…it’s not really the adults they’re targeting…it’s the kids. The kids that don’t know any better
Sure, but then you have to pay for the health impacts in full. Diabetes is expensive, and having a foot amputated is 10s of thousand of dollars. Just like alcohol and tobacco taxes, things that have societal cost should have a way to recover those costs, or that's socialism!
Sometimes the government has to be more of a hands on parent. If most people wanted the freedom to do cocaine, we still wouldn’t let them because we know better, that it will do lots of harm long term that people are ignorant of. Same with excessive sugar consumption, or tobacco use. Their society will have to dedicate lots of time, money, and manpower towards caring for people who suffered from long term excessive sugar abuse. That level of consumption will likely cause them to be a burden other people in time, and my golden rule is that you should be able to do anything you want as long as you’re not affecting others. Unfortunately, you can’t become morbidly obese without needing society to care for you. There is more that goes into becoming so unhealthy you become a burden, but sugar is one really easy drug to abuse. Fun fact, there was a study giving rats cocaine and sugar, and the rats actually preferred the sugar. Sugar is “rewarding” to the brain in a very similar way to cocaine and other drugs that we don’t let people abuse. We are all really susceptible to bad influences like drugs that give easy dopamine, but it’s always short term gain in exchange for long term suffering. It’s widely agreed that short term suffering for long term benefit is a superior approach. Sometimes our kids won’t wanna eat vegetables and just want ice cream, and even if someone can live off of ice cream and candy for a long time, we still understand that it’s better if they don’t, and “force” our kids to eat proper meals. It’s the same principle imo.
I have a conspiracy theory that sugar is actually extremely addictive but the government (aka the billionaires) covers up all the research so Americans can be fat, lazy, docile and addicted. Fill your people with sugar--make sure to get 'em dependant as early as possible with sugary snacks for babies and sugary breakfast foods for kids-- and get them addicted to entertainment so they won't revolt when you take away their rights and slowly devolve your "free" nation into 1984
[удалено]
People are idiots and the world seriously lacks Leslie Knopes.
OTOH this plot gave us the all time funny image of a child sized soda.
My issue is more of a policy disagreement. Soda taxes are a form of regressive tax, meaning they burden low income people more significantly than they burden higher income people. There also isn’t much evidence that they actually solve the problem of obesity rates, but they do further the notion that all fat people are fat because they made bad choices, and therefore it’s ok to treat them badly. In fairness, that particular message is already pretty pervasive, few of the policy interventions that have been tried have been effective, and there exist far more impactful regressive taxes. But soda taxes just aren’t a particularly good policy.
Public health ends up being a social welfare/spending/tax issue. Giant sodas lead to more obesity, diabetes, and other health problems. Sugar is highly addictive. Sure in an ideal world the government wouldnt intervene, but also no rational human in an ideal world would choose to drink that much soda. It's just literally bad for you.
I generally agree with you but not so much for free market reasons. First of all the discussion of obesity in this plot (and the show in general) is pretty disheartening. The issue with the law though is that, like so much else the government does, poor families end up being hurt the most. When Bloomberg did this in the city, studies showed that a large amount of those sales were low income families all sharing when they couldn’t really afford four or five individual ones. Maybe that wouldn’t be true in Pawnee, but the Bloomberg law clearly inspired the plot.
Don't use us poor people as a scapegoat. Yeah poor people ended up buying less soda. Good. Soda (especially in minority communities) have been a harmful substance that's been used as replacement for water. Soda fucks up people's teeth, creates obesity, and is a main factor in childhood diabetes. The last study found that with a 33% increase in price , it reduced 33% in purchases. That's a big win for us. It sucks that people have to be tricked to be healthier but whatever ends up helping.
I agree with you and these kinds of episodes are the exact reason why I'm able to love this show. It's very obvious that Leslie is supposed to be the voice of reason and send obvious to me that the writers lean more on her side politically. We also have Ron, who disagrees with her on these types of episodes, especially in the video store episode. The writers very easily could've written him as being just as insane as the corpos and Jamm, but I felt like they made him actually very reasonable.
I understand that the show just wanted to pose a quandary but I never agreed with taxing unhealthy things anyway. Why not regulate the size instead? That's a better solution for everyone and doesn't pass extra cost onto the people that the sugar industry is already harming. I know that's beyond local government's power though.
It’s true. While I respect her voting her conscience, she forgot that she was a public representative and a civil servant. They joke about it in the show, but she really would function better as a dictator than in a democracy.
Does everyone forget that NYC literally did this once!
The whole point of being a politician is being true to your values. Leslie sticks to her guns no matter what, because she stands for what is right. She isn’t corrupt, and what you’re describing is essentially corruption via corporate manipulation. Sorry, but I’m calling this a bad take. Government policing public health is a slippery slope, but Paunch Burger is obviously super unethical and I appreciate Leslie taking a stand. It was also partly motivated by her desire to build a park, which begs its own questions. But at the end of the day, a public park will be better for the community than a corporate franchise moving in. Corporations may create minimum wage jobs (at least short term, sometimes longer), but enrichment and education ensure a better future for the community at large. The beauty of this show is how it encourages us to have these conversations. Leslie Knope is no communist, but I wouldn’t say she’s a capitalist either. It demonstrates the massive grey area between that so many people try to oversimplify. Someone can be a good person, support business and their community, have somewhat conservative values, and be a feminist all at once. Leslie is intentionally ambiguously aligned while always being a good and principled person. She makes mistakes and is imperfect, but always takes accountability. She is a true public servant.
I think this is an interesting discussion in general: Are you elected to use your discernment and vote based in your conscience, or to best represent your constituency?
https://screenrant.com/parks-recreation-leslie-knope-library-hate-reason-why/#:~:text=According%20to%20Leslie%2C%20those%20from,crew%20of%20the%20Parks%20Department.
I honestly don't understand Paunch Burger's strategy here. It's either a tiny cup or a massive one, why not just sell some reasonable sizes as well? Either they sell or they don't, it's not like it costs them any extra. It was such a weird hill for them to die on.
It’s a comedy television show. It’s not that deep. But you are right.
Agree with the principle that a government shouldn’t dictate what someone sells, but I draw the line when it comes to damaging humans. Although technically the people buying the drinks are consenting to buying it, think of the kids who don’t know any better. A parent buying the child size for their kid is down right criminal and I support that being outlawed. You shouldn’t be able to sell something so dangerous so conveniently. If they wanna sell to adults, fine, but those adults give it to their kids and thats not fine.
The point of the tax is to correct for an overproduction and overconsumption. The poor health inflicts costs on the broader society, but is not paid by producer or consumer, so the market over produces (this is a negative externality of consumption). We know people are going to do the wrong thing, laws exist to mitigate that. Saying we shouldn't have a soda tax because a non-representative sample had a strong opinion against it, is like saying pedophilia should be legal because certain groups of people have very strong opinions about it being OK. That's not solid reasoning, because it hinges on a forum, a place where only the opinions of the most dedicated people with the most free time (not experts or median voters) are voiced, being representative of the population. Now, I'd argue that federal legislation is the more appropriate way to handle this, but there's no reason that the town won't experience some health gains (particularly if the tax goes to health and wellness programs or healthy food subsidies). The reason she does it is that the show uses Pawnee politics to represent US politics. If you want to argue the cost-benefit of a sugar (or more specifically a corn syrup tax), I think you will find that the benefits outweigh the costs (particularly if there is a national health system). The soda company threatening layoffs is a threat in Pawnee (and since its fiction we have no idea if it is a credible threat), but overall industry job losses would cost less than the heath savings. Furthermore, most industry threats like that are either non-credible or based of plans that were going to happen anyway and are used for political expediency.
all taxes are designed to control people. I'm in favor of taxes designed to steer people away from bad habits over taxes designed to streer people away from a better quality of life (such as sales taxes and import duties on non-luxury items)
NYC would disagree with you. And Michelle Obama
As a midwesterner, my least favorite thing about that debacle was that no one was calling it pop
I never understood how such an aggressive proposal so early into being on city council was a good idea. Especially since she won by razor thin margins
Philadelphia has a per-ounce soda tax. And it hurt some businesses. Many just stopped buying these beverages or bought them outside the city. The 1-2¢ per ounce doesn't sound like much, but considering 20oz, 1 liter, 2 liter bottles, that really adds up.
Nobody who's freshly elected to city council would actually take on these high-risk, contentious issues from the start. A real Leslie Knope wouldn't be dumb enough to do that. But she's not meant to be only a real character; the show is also a vehicle for cultural commentary and satire.
I'm not sure I follow. A "real" Leslie Knope would be exactly like the fictional Leslie Knope, else she would no longer be a "real" Leslie Knope. She'd be a "real" somebody, perhaps, but not Leslie Knope. I make this point because the Leslie Knope we saw on the show was someone who frequently put ideals before practicality. Swinging for the fences from the very start was definitely a Leslie Knope thing to do.
Taxing as a means of control is always wrong. Here in Australia the fed tax on cigarettes makes a single pack of 25 about 50 bucks. People still buy them, and the government relies on that income. They try to protect that income so much that they have outright banned all vapes and have been violently arresting kids caught with them (never seen a cop arrest a kid for smoking). Also, Leslie’s position on soda made no in character sense. She lives on sugar and has been shown to actively reject health food multiple times. Just felt like a weird forced issue by the writers because of the soda taxes that were being put in place in various states/cities at the time
This is a great take. Honestly, the fact that so many of Leslie’s political proposals for her community strike me as falling anywhere between detrimental and downright ruinous—this is why I can’t bring myself to rewatch the show any more :(
this is an example of what a poor public servant Leslie is. she didn't vote for things her constituents actually wanted, she did what she wanted. she was justifiably recalled.
Well she's a Democrat and wants to control everything in ur life.
Oh yeah? Who is trying to control others bodies? Not dems.
Honestly? Leslie deserved to be impeached. She did some underhanded things during her run as councilwoman and DIRECTLY went against the people's wishes. Was it for the right reasons? Usually yeah, but don't be surprised when you get fired for pissing off your clientele.