Tax on Soda?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Susan Patterson on October 15, 2009 at 10:23am

Why tax something that is already supported by government subsidy? Why not simply discontinue the subsidy?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Leon on October 15, 2009 at 10:42am

The tax won't happen, the soda companies are to rich and powerful. I'm form Michigan, and the state needs to raise money, but the politicians won't raise the tax on beer, which was last changed in 1963 when it was lowered, because the beer lobby is so powerful!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rachel Richardson on October 15, 2009 at 10:45am

I have no problems with the proposed tax itself, especially since unlike food, soda isn’t essential for life (caffeine addicts may beg to differ). What I have a problem with is in calling it an “obesity” tax, as if fat people, both current and future, are the only consumers of sweetened soda. I run a body acceptance blog at www.the-f-word.org where we discuss three F-words: food, fat and feminism. Using fat people as justification for this tax not only contributes further to an already pervasive problem of weight-based discrimination, but it also ignores the larger reasons behind much of this so-called obesity epidemic, which are, in part, the result of current industrial agricultural policies. If the goal of this "fat tax" is to improve public health, then government subsidies of fruits and vegetables would make for better public policy than taxing a cheap source of calories. If the goal of the tax is to generate funds for state budgets in spiraling financial deficits, then call a spade a spade and don't use fat people as unwitting pawns in a game of political strategy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Hewitt Rose on October 15, 2009 at 8:54pm

Isn't soda a product of "current industrial agricultural policies"? It is not cheap, but it is certainly heavily promoted and subsidized. (Don't even get me started on the sugar industry and their subsidies.) I am sure we can agree that excessive sugar consumption is unhealthy; it makes you fat, hungry (sugar crash), and rots your teeth. So, don't call it an "obesity" tax; call it a "pro-health" tax. Subsidizing healthy food does not trade off against taxing unhealthy food; government can do both.

If the tax is merely to raise revenue, then I agree with you. Call it for what it is. Curbing sin and raising revenues are not the same goals and can be inconsistent with each other.

Rachel Richardson said:

I have no problems with the proposed tax itself, especially since unlike food, soda isn’t essential for life (caffeine addicts may beg to differ). What I have a problem with is in calling it an “obesity” tax, as if fat people, both current and future, are the only consumers of sweetened soda. I run a body acceptance blog at www.the-f-word.org where we discuss three F-words: food, fat and feminism. Using fat people as justification for this tax not only contributes further to an already pervasive problem of weight-based discrimination, but it also ignores the larger reasons behind much of this so-called obesity epidemic, which are, in part, the result of current industrial agricultural policies. If the goal of this "fat tax" is to improve public health, then government subsidies of fruits and vegetables would make for better public policy than taxing a cheap source of calories. If the goal of the tax is to generate funds for state budgets in spiraling financial deficits, then call a spade a spade and don't use fat people as unwitting pawns in a game of political strategy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by wonkguy on October 16, 2009 at 1:13pm

Tax it. While we're at it, can we tax the flip flops people wear for noise pollution. I'm totally serious, those shoes are the worst. First I'm being forced to look at the wearer's scraggly toes and then to boot that annoying "flap flap flap" noise is sooooo irritating.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jay Richard Jones on October 16, 2009 at 2:03pm

The idea is to put a transfer tax on users to pay for the medical costs of their choices -- hence the taxes on liquor and tobacco products, for example. Despite the mildly regressive effect of the tax, I think it makes sense. It's one of the principles to which I was raised: "The Great Law of Consequences". People should be willing to bear the consequences of their poor health choices. And those who make the more healthful choices should not be responsible for bearing consequences for which they played no part.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This