1) The Sin Reason
Sugary beverages account for up to 15 percent of the calories consumed by children, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors wrote that "sugar-sweetened beverages ... may be the single largest driver of the obesity epidemic."
2) The Market Reason
There's a simple reason why sugary drinks and junk food are contributing to the country's obesity epidemic. They're very, very cheap. As this NYT graph below demonstrates, the price of fresh produce has increased by about 50 percent in the last three decades while the price of alcohol, butter and soda has plummeted. The ability of food producers to make delicious, cheap food would be a commendable accomplishment of food engineering, but it's also contributing to a nationwide obesity epidemic. Raising the price of sodas, which plummeted relative to overall inflation in the last 30 years, strikes me as a responsible way to incent consumers to make healthier choices.
3) The Deficit ReasonBut let's say it doesn't change anybody's eating preferences. Let's say Americans keep paying a couple cents more for the same amount of Pepsi. Well then fine, I say, at least they're helping to pay down the federal deficit. I hear the argument that a sales tax on soda (or alcohol) would be regressive, taking a larger percentage of poorer people's income and striking at the less fortunate demographic that is more likely to buy lots of soda in the first place. But health care reform would use those billions of dollars -- a 3 cent tax per 12-ounce serving could generate $24 billion in four years -- to pay for Medicaid and health care subsidies for less fortunate Americans, anyway.
This would also be a good time to reiterate that I'd also support a small tax on alcohol. Inflation has eroded the alcohol tax over the last half century. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that simply returning alcohol taxes to their 1991 levels would raise another $27 billion in the next ten years. What would that cost us alcohol drinkers? A person who drinks a glass of wine every night "would pay only $10.95 more in alcohol excise taxes over the course of a year," according to the CBPP. In other words, this alcohol tax would cost you one extra glass of Merlot per year.
Also, from today's WaPo, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110402899.html , obesity is a security threat.
You've listed no actual reasons to have a soda tax.
First, enjoying your food, even if it's sugary and not good for you, is not a sin. If it were, we should be taxing butter and other fat sources just as much.
Second, you aren't going to change behavior with a small tax. As your graph shows, you'd have to increase prices by 50% on soda just to get back to the 80's level. I think people drank soda back then too. I drink 2 cans of 7up a day, and even another 10 cents a can isn't changing my habit. If I did want to save money, I could switch to the cheaper grocery store brand before I gave up the soda.
Third, if you need more revenue, the fair, sensible way to do it is an increase in income taxes. Politicians don't want to take the hit on that though, so they pick some moralistic, paternalistic, regressive thing like a soda tax that's "for your own good."
Blah!
M, you've listed no actual reasons to NOT have a soda tax.
1) Enjoying something that is not good for you is precisely the sin that is taxed in tobacco, and alcohol, so why not drinks? That it might be a good idea to extend a soda tax to other fat sources is not an argument against a soda tax. On the contrary, it's an argument to extend a soda tax.
2) I don't disagree with this point, but the nice thing about a sin tax is that even if you don't discourage the sin, you get the tax.
3) Well look, we can both acknowledge two things: 1) Taxes have to go up somehow; 2) No politician is about to hike income taxes. It seems to me that's an argument FOR creative taxes.
"Enjoying something that is not good for you is precisely the sin that is taxed"
Ex wives come to mind. Had there been a punitive tax on her, I'd have had second thoughts.....maybe.
The only issue to keep in mind is that they can tack on other taxes (soda tax, fat tax, etc) and increase the income tax, and add a VAT, and add a national sales tax, and add, and add, and add. Congress is really good at adding/increasing taxes. Bad at eliminating/reducing taxes.
"Congress is really good at adding/increasing taxes. Bad at eliminating/reducing taxes."
Wait, what? Congress is really really good at reducing taxes! I can think of a lot of tax cuts in the last nine years -- the Bush tax cuts, the estate tax cut, the Making Work Pay tax cut, the promise to extend the Bush tax cuts, and so on. When was the last time a Republican Congress voted to raise taxes?
"no actual reasons to NOT have a soda tax..."
So it's your position that you want a soda tax regardless of whether it's fair or effective?
And is there a tax that you don't like? After all, you've given no arguments why we shouldn't have an internet tax, or a blog tax.
"3) Well look, we can both acknowledge two things: 1) Taxes have to go up somehow"
Why? To pay for all the crap that the liberals in Dc want to ram down our throats?
Gee! maybe they could think of REDUCING SPENDING and getting rid a useless garbage. Life will go on just fine without the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Get rid of PBS and NPR and let them sell ads like their private competitors. As a bonus the gov't. could then fire the useless bureaucrats in such agencies and let them compete in the real world.
Then we could get rid of the guy at the USDA who measures how fast ketchup flows and grades it. That could be followed by all the other rediculous "bureasu" we have around DC that accomplish a giant nothing.
We could go bigtime and close the Dep't. of Education since it's been one giant failure. Ever since they created the monstrosity public schools have gotten worse. Let the states support their own schools like they used to do.
As a bonus the gov't. could then fire the useless bureaucrats in such agencies and let them compete in the real world.
Oh there's lots and lots of fat to cut before you raise taxes.
I agree you could cut spending, but the stuff you mention is small change. To really cut, you need to hit 1) defense spending and 2) entitlements.
If you are willing to stop the Iraq and Afghan wars, cut bases around the world, cut defense projects (causing lots of unemployment), and are willing to rein in Medicare and Social Security growth, then we can talk.
Otherwise, you're not serious about cutting spending.
I strongly agree with mgoodfel. Many people who hate US government bureaucrats in Washington D.C. love it when those same bureaucrats travel to the Middle East to spread "democracy" at gun point.
I'm always puzzled that sin taxes are sold with "it will raise lots of money and lower demand" - it can do one or the other, but it can't do both.
I think it's interesting that the author wants a tax on soda, but cites a study on "sugar sweetened beverages". Why should soda get taxed but not fruit punch or fruit drink or lemonaid or other "sugar sweetened beverages"? And for that matter, is soda sweetened with sugar really any worse than fruit juices that have lots of naturally occurring sugar in them and similar calorie counts? A calorie is a calorie, and a simple carbohydrate is a simple carbohydrate.
How dare you confound Derek with pesky fact-based questions?!? Have you no decency, sir?!? Can't you see that we're doing this for the children? Good progressives like Derek know what is good for people, and what is not good for people, and are determined to prevent people from 'enjoying something that is not good' for them, because such enjoyment would be sinful. And every good progressive knows that soda is the quaff of the devil. It is sin incarnate, and therefore must be taxed into submission. Then we will move onto the next sinful enjoyment--HoHos. Spawn of Satan, I tell you.
Soda and natural juice aren't the same - a calorie is not just a calorie, and a simple carbohydrate is not just a simple carbohydrate. I won't even try to make any scientific arguments or anything, but just ask yourself what was the last gas station you saw selling 64 oz cups of orange juice.
If demand increases for healthier foods, fruits and vegetables say, wouldn't that drive up their prices, furhter placing them out of reach of the folks you already admit can't afford to buy them already.
Then the lower income folks, getting sicker and fatter on sodas and other junk food, consume more health care, and need more in taxpayer subsidies to cover that growing cost, cause the soda tax to be increased even more, causing the cycle to repeat at higher levels.
It's a myth that poor people can't find "healthy" food. You can find basic ingredients and canned veggies everywhere. You can eat at McDonalds and have a healthy meal. Just don't eat 4000 calories a day.
Maybe, but you can't get a biggie size salad at Wandys.
Dont care. Junk food is a "want" not a "need" therefore economic status is not a concern in taxing edible crap.
"A small tax on sugary soda drinks -- and on alcohol -- would be a really good idea."
Whooaaa, Whoa, ok. I was all for the sugary soda tax until you threw in the "and on alcohol" part. That is going too far. You see, I actually drink alcohol. Aaannnndd, I don't mix it with sugary soda.
So that's it. I'm offically against this proposal.
Feel free to tax those sugary mocha-latte drinks from Starbucks, too. If you are planning on taxing sugary sodas...
Yup, tax all of the crap. And by the way I drink alcohol and think french fries are the perfect food. Reduce heathcare costs by staying heathier. At least the tax on junk food islinking cause and effect.
Why is it that few want to stop the problem at its source? For some reason people keep talking about "sugar tax" like that is actually what is in soda. High fructose corn syrup is the culprit. Why is soda so cheap? Because of farm subsidies that make corn practically free (until you add the demand for the disastrous corn ethanol). Multinational corporations like Archer Daniels Midline, Cargill, and Con Agra love farm subsidies and cheap commodities. It pads the soda producers’ pockets as well. It is corporate welfare and does little to help real farmers. The real farmer is still going broke.
Farm subsidies are paid by the government using our tax dollars. Guess what...our tax dollars just caused an obesity epidemic. Now we are going to get taxed because it seems much more "humane" to tax the “scourge of beverages” than to do something bold and sensible like stopping "farm" subsidies. So you are advocating further taxation to reward the government for their screw-ups?
I bet the politicians know that ADM, Cargill, PepsiCo, Coca Cola, and Con Agra donate much more money during the campaign cycle than Bob in Missouri who drinks a Dr. Pepper every evening. Hence, you have policy that is idiotic at best.
Frankly, I'm disappointed that you, Mr. Thompson, didn't even address this issue. Maybe you were pressured by management not to write such things as you may lose advertisement revenue from the food processing giants. Seems that is the way journalism works these days.
Nanny State says Boo Hoo
That Soda is a Noo Noo
Tax It!
Tax It!
'Till all is gone.
The State should be there to protect one from the stupidity and malfeasance of others, not to protect one from his own stupidity. Unlike cigarettes, there is no "second hand sweetener" so if someone is going to drink themselves into soda-induced obesity let them. And then "triage" them, along with the smokers, out of any universal healthcare that may get rammed through Congress. No matter how inexpensive it may be, there is no gun being held to the heads of soda drinkers, if they chose to drink it to excess they should bear the consequences.
I agree that bad habits should bring higher premiums....but that's not what the dems want to do. They'd rather coddle the person with bad habits and throttle the person who is responsible.
Obesity is a serious and complex problem that requires thoughtful and comprehensive solutions. But a tax on soda is simply the wrong approach. A tax will not teach healthy lifestyles. Education, exercise and balanced diets do that.
All calories count – regardless of their source. This is supported by science. Thus, beverages are no greater a contributor to obesity than any other caloric food or beverage. In fact, both West Virginia and Arkansas have excise taxes on beverages already in place, yet have among the 10 highest rates of obesity in the nation.
As we look for ways to improve healthcare, the focus should be on solutions that work. A tax on beverages won’t make a dent in paying for improved healthcare or addressing obesity.
For more information, visit the American Beverage Association at www.ameribev.org.
Look at the proposed funding. Tax on the rich. Tax on plastic surgery. Since when is the USA into wealth re-distribution? This is a slippery slope my friends.
How about some cause and effect. A way to cut healthcare costs is for all to stay healthier.
I am for soda and junk food taxes. I am for taxing everything over 120 calories per serving of processed food.
If people want to put the crap in their bodies, let them pay for the consequences.
If it deters consumption, good; if not the right people will be paying for the consequences.