Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
What do you think about a tax on sugary drinks as a way to curb obesity and finance health care reform?
The NY Times' ethicist blog by Randy Cohen lays out the debate and his viewpoint on whether or not sugary drinks should be taxed. It's an interesting read and makes you wonder if taxing certain foods and drinks would actually stop people from consuming them. What's your take on the idea?
Please read the following story and argument before answering.
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/an-anti-tax-argument-thats-hard-to-swallow/?ex=1269230400&en=2f8ba3bee30043b5&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=GN-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M115b-ROS-0909-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
Please read the following story and argument before answering.
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/an-anti-tax-argument-thats-hard-to-swallow/?ex=1269230400&en=2f8ba3bee30043b5&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=GN-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M115b-ROS-0909-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click
- In Food and Drink |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
Marked as Best!
September 29, 2009 08:24 AM
(4)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I think it is morally wrong to allow a government to use taxation as a way to influence personal choices. I hate the concept of a sin tax, such as what we tack on to tobacco, alcohol and certain other products. If a product is legal, it should be taxed at the same rate as everything else. ANY food or drink item that is overindulged in can be bad for our health. This sort of taxation is nothing more than a money grab and all the justification and moralizing in the world can't disguise it.
As the article states, the government already influences our diet in various ways, including educating people about the "food pyramid". Education is fine, as that is simply giving citizens the information they need to make an informed choice. When they cross the line from education to taxation they go from a helpful mode into a punitive one. The government is essentially saying that they don't care if you consume something unhealthy as long as you give them extra money while you make yourself sick.
This is just like the tax on cigarettes. The government always wants more of our money, so they tax small addicted segments of the population in order to get that money. If the passionate "stop obesity" crowd outnumbers the soda addicts, soda drinkers will get taxed more. The government doesn't really want people to stop drinking soda, they simply want more money from them. If people stopped drinking soda, the soda companies would make less money, employee less people and pay less taxes.
If the government truly desires to use taxation as a way to fight obesity and fund socialist health care programs they need to start a "fat slob" tax. Make people go to the Big Brother weighing station when they pay their income tax and charge them for being over weight. It wouldn't matter if the excess lard came from chugging soda, scarfing down pork rinds or indulging at all-you-can-eat buffets. While this level of governmental intrusion would hopefully lead to a revolution, at least this approach could claim some degree of honesty as it would target the problematic condition rather than unfairly punish healthy people who occasionally drink soda.
With a soda tax people will keep on chugging and the government will simply exploit their addiction for profit. Once people get hooked on a product, they will keep buying it even when the cost goes up. I once worked at a deli and constantly had people try to buy soda, alcohol and cigarettes using food stamps. They had so little money that they needed government assistance to buy food yet they still tried to spend what little they had on non-nourishing items because they wanted it so badly. If soda gets more expensive, addicts on a tight budget will leave the veggies and milk off of their shopping list so that they can still afford the soda.
If we allow the idea of a soda tax, how long until we tax salty snack foods because of high blood pressure problems or cheap ground meat because of fat and cholesterol issues? Why not impose a 100% tax on fast food since most of it is so bad for you? How about setting up government sponsored gyms and taxing anyone who fails to complete their mandatory workout since failure to exercise is unhealthy? Instead lets just take it to its natural conclusion and let everyone pay for their own health care and eat/drink whatever they please.
If the goal is to discourage soda consumption by making it more expensive, all they have to do is eliminate government corn subsidies. As many people have already commented on that NY Times article, this would raise the price of high fructose corn syrup, which would in turn make soda more expensive. It would also make a lot of other unhealthy food and beverages more expensive at the same time. The government won't do this, because this would not give them the excuse of extracting more money from us via the new tax.
As the article states, the government already influences our diet in various ways, including educating people about the "food pyramid". Education is fine, as that is simply giving citizens the information they need to make an informed choice. When they cross the line from education to taxation they go from a helpful mode into a punitive one. The government is essentially saying that they don't care if you consume something unhealthy as long as you give them extra money while you make yourself sick.
This is just like the tax on cigarettes. The government always wants more of our money, so they tax small addicted segments of the population in order to get that money. If the passionate "stop obesity" crowd outnumbers the soda addicts, soda drinkers will get taxed more. The government doesn't really want people to stop drinking soda, they simply want more money from them. If people stopped drinking soda, the soda companies would make less money, employee less people and pay less taxes.
If the government truly desires to use taxation as a way to fight obesity and fund socialist health care programs they need to start a "fat slob" tax. Make people go to the Big Brother weighing station when they pay their income tax and charge them for being over weight. It wouldn't matter if the excess lard came from chugging soda, scarfing down pork rinds or indulging at all-you-can-eat buffets. While this level of governmental intrusion would hopefully lead to a revolution, at least this approach could claim some degree of honesty as it would target the problematic condition rather than unfairly punish healthy people who occasionally drink soda.
With a soda tax people will keep on chugging and the government will simply exploit their addiction for profit. Once people get hooked on a product, they will keep buying it even when the cost goes up. I once worked at a deli and constantly had people try to buy soda, alcohol and cigarettes using food stamps. They had so little money that they needed government assistance to buy food yet they still tried to spend what little they had on non-nourishing items because they wanted it so badly. If soda gets more expensive, addicts on a tight budget will leave the veggies and milk off of their shopping list so that they can still afford the soda.
If we allow the idea of a soda tax, how long until we tax salty snack foods because of high blood pressure problems or cheap ground meat because of fat and cholesterol issues? Why not impose a 100% tax on fast food since most of it is so bad for you? How about setting up government sponsored gyms and taxing anyone who fails to complete their mandatory workout since failure to exercise is unhealthy? Instead lets just take it to its natural conclusion and let everyone pay for their own health care and eat/drink whatever they please.
If the goal is to discourage soda consumption by making it more expensive, all they have to do is eliminate government corn subsidies. As many people have already commented on that NY Times article, this would raise the price of high fructose corn syrup, which would in turn make soda more expensive. It would also make a lot of other unhealthy food and beverages more expensive at the same time. The government won't do this, because this would not give them the excuse of extracting more money from us via the new tax.
| Asker's Rating: |
• Wow! I didn't mean to cause such a stir with this question! I've enjoyed reading the debate! Thanks for such a passionate answer! :)
Helpful Answer?
(4)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (9)
September 29, 2009 01:36 AM
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/an-anti-tax-argument-thats-har...
and a HEAVY dose of personal opinion! Helpful Answer? (0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I think the tax is ignorant or exploitative at least. It would make sense if ONLY obese people needed health care. That is not the case however. To select part of the population to fund any project designed for all, is ridiculous. As far as the article and the attacks back and forth, it doesn't surprise me. These type of arguments happen every day. Just listen to a liberal show then switch to a conservative show and you will see that they both put a spin on every situation to further their own agenda. Liberals - Conservatives, Democrats - Republicans, Management - Employees, Soda manufacturers - Politicians that want to tax them, the list goes on ad infinitum. Spin, spin, spin...
I also doubt the tax is really to combat obesity. If it was then 100% of the money would go to that cause. I think this is just more smoke and mirrors to get the bill passed. Alcohol, tobacco, sugar, what's next?
Source(s):
I also doubt the tax is really to combat obesity. If it was then 100% of the money would go to that cause. I think this is just more smoke and mirrors to get the bill passed. Alcohol, tobacco, sugar, what's next?
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/an-anti-tax-argument-thats-har...
and a HEAVY dose of personal opinion! Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
September 29, 2009 01:14 PM
- Fact Refuted
Obesity related health care cost 78.5 billion dollars in 1998 and has been going up rapidly.
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html
Report
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html
September 29, 2009 01:54 AM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
In general, having the government tell its citizens how to conduct their personal lives (e.g. what to eat or drink) is troublesome. After all, what makes our Representatives and Senators authorities on what is the right thing for any one particular one of us to eat or drink? Furthermore, with all the lobbying action likely to be involved how independent will be their debate and their vote? As long as what I drink or eat has negligible effect on others, the government should not try to regulate or even "encourage" what I choose to do.
Having said all that, there is that critical part 'as long as what I drink or eat has negligible effect on others." In the tobacco lawsuits that resulted in large payouts by tobacco companies to the government, the premise resulting in those payouts was that the overall result of having people properly use the products in question was increased medical costs to Medicare and Medicaid. One can similarly make a valid argument that drinking sugary beverages increases costs to society through increased obesity rates and its resultant illnesses. In addition, sugary beverages are not a life necessity, so having their prices increase will not significantly damage any consumers who cannot afford the higher prices.
Whether the response should be taxation, or damages, is probably immaterial. If the latter are assessed, the companies in question will most likely raise prices, passing the cost to the consumer anyway. Morally however, I'd prefer the latter, as it puts the onus where it more properly belongs. The countervailing argument is that the cost of assessing a tax are much lower than the cost of litigation. Thus I'd say that taxation of sugary beverages is at least ethically and financially a viable proposition. Whether it is also legally and politically feasible is a separate issue.
Helpful Answer?
Having said all that, there is that critical part 'as long as what I drink or eat has negligible effect on others." In the tobacco lawsuits that resulted in large payouts by tobacco companies to the government, the premise resulting in those payouts was that the overall result of having people properly use the products in question was increased medical costs to Medicare and Medicaid. One can similarly make a valid argument that drinking sugary beverages increases costs to society through increased obesity rates and its resultant illnesses. In addition, sugary beverages are not a life necessity, so having their prices increase will not significantly damage any consumers who cannot afford the higher prices.
Whether the response should be taxation, or damages, is probably immaterial. If the latter are assessed, the companies in question will most likely raise prices, passing the cost to the consumer anyway. Morally however, I'd prefer the latter, as it puts the onus where it more properly belongs. The countervailing argument is that the cost of assessing a tax are much lower than the cost of litigation. Thus I'd say that taxation of sugary beverages is at least ethically and financially a viable proposition. Whether it is also legally and politically feasible is a separate issue.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
September 29, 2009 01:58 AM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I don't think it will have any effect of any kind, meaning I don't even think the tax revenue will generate a measurable benefit for health care either. Where I live, many stores have recently started charging their customers five cents for each plastic shopping bag they use. It doesn't have any effect on me whatsoever. I know I personally sometimes view deterrents as challenges, so if others adopt the same mindset, that may be part of the reason schemes like this fail.
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
September 29, 2009 02:10 AM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Cigarettes and other tobacco products are heavily taxed,
yet no smoker that I know of has even considered giving it up,
and, to the best of my knowledge, that tax has not helped anyone
(have States added "quit" programs either medically or in schools?
have the taxes gone to something that benefit everyone, such as paving roads?
(i.e., the so-called "asphalt-tar-for-cigarette-tar" tax)).
Likewise, any taxes on sodas or sweets would have a negligible effect.
Besides, who said that sodas are the prime reason for obesity?
Fast food, not to mention virtually unlimited supplies, at least in the USA,
and little self-control are far more responsible for obesity in youngsters and adults.
To be fair, people are "wired" to eat as much as is available
(think of your prehistoric ancestors, who had to fight tooth-and-nail for their next meal;
not too many chubby cavemen have been found, to date!).
However, modern man has no such rationale,
and, unfortunately, we can't tax lack of control or stupidity.
Helpful Answer?
yet no smoker that I know of has even considered giving it up,
and, to the best of my knowledge, that tax has not helped anyone
(have States added "quit" programs either medically or in schools?
have the taxes gone to something that benefit everyone, such as paving roads?
(i.e., the so-called "asphalt-tar-for-cigarette-tar" tax)).
Likewise, any taxes on sodas or sweets would have a negligible effect.
Besides, who said that sodas are the prime reason for obesity?
Fast food, not to mention virtually unlimited supplies, at least in the USA,
and little self-control are far more responsible for obesity in youngsters and adults.
To be fair, people are "wired" to eat as much as is available
(think of your prehistoric ancestors, who had to fight tooth-and-nail for their next meal;
not too many chubby cavemen have been found, to date!).
However, modern man has no such rationale,
and, unfortunately, we can't tax lack of control or stupidity.
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
September 29, 2009 12:34 PM
Man alive, I completely agree! Who said that sodas are the cause of obesity?
The same people who are obese and indulging in regular sodas, are the same ones eating giant fast food meals, huge pizzas, bagels, donuts, and eight million other unhealthy habits. A lot of news stories have glommed on to the "link" between them all: POP! So that MUST be the culprit! Right?
WRONG!
It's not a healthy addition to the diet, but I'm a regular diet pop drinker and I'm sure not obese. How can that be? Because I make healthy choices in other ways: Small portions, lots of veggies, almost no fast food, and few desserts.
Anyone else feel like we're in the middle of a nutritional witch hunt?
Report
The same people who are obese and indulging in regular sodas, are the same ones eating giant fast food meals, huge pizzas, bagels, donuts, and eight million other unhealthy habits. A lot of news stories have glommed on to the "link" between them all: POP! So that MUST be the culprit! Right?
WRONG!
It's not a healthy addition to the diet, but I'm a regular diet pop drinker and I'm sure not obese. How can that be? Because I make healthy choices in other ways: Small portions, lots of veggies, almost no fast food, and few desserts.
Anyone else feel like we're in the middle of a nutritional witch hunt?
September 29, 2009 03:00 AM
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
As a libertarian, I think the government should get out of our lives and our pockets as much as possible. Taxing us for things like this is silly. I mean, someone who is thin and in perfect condition, muscular, exercises and eats well will pay the same tax as someone who is obese and in poor health and doesn't exercise or take care of themselves.
Do we come to a point where we have to stand on a scale and get our blood pressure and blood sugar taken in order to tell what we can and can't eat?
Watch this:
http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
It's really worth watching if you haven't seen it. No, I mean REALLY worth watching.
Helpful Answer?
Do we come to a point where we have to stand on a scale and get our blood pressure and blood sugar taken in order to tell what we can and can't eat?
Watch this:
http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
It's really worth watching if you haven't seen it. No, I mean REALLY worth watching.
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
September 29, 2009 04:25 AM
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/an-anti-tax-argument-thats-har... Helpful Answer? (2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I understood the article "An Anti-Tax Argument That’s Hard to Swallow" as an attack on the argument given by Coca-Cola C.E.O. Muhtar Kent. Not as a valid discussion concerning the taxing of sugary drinks.
"I am an expert on neither tax policy nor nutrition" the writer (Randy Cohen) states. Well neither am I. Having said that my personal position is that taxing 'soda' would not stop people from consuming it. Unless of course they put a ridiculously high tax on it. Thus it would do nothing to curb obesity.
If sugary items were taxed, I believe that the money should go into prevention of obesity not health care reform. Teach people at the earliest age about proper nutrition and exercise. It seems to me that there is a lot more effort that needs to go into this area of education.
Maybe the money could be used to reduce the cost of healthier foods! Now there's a thought.
.
.
Source(s):
"I am an expert on neither tax policy nor nutrition" the writer (Randy Cohen) states. Well neither am I. Having said that my personal position is that taxing 'soda' would not stop people from consuming it. Unless of course they put a ridiculously high tax on it. Thus it would do nothing to curb obesity.
If sugary items were taxed, I believe that the money should go into prevention of obesity not health care reform. Teach people at the earliest age about proper nutrition and exercise. It seems to me that there is a lot more effort that needs to go into this area of education.
Maybe the money could be used to reduce the cost of healthier foods! Now there's a thought.
.
.
http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/an-anti-tax-argument-thats-har... Helpful Answer?
(2)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
September 29, 2009 04:37 AM
but sugar itself doesn't cause obesity... it's never caused obesity. What's hurting us is High Fructose Corn Syrup being used in place of sugar in almost all sweet things, and even in things that aren't supposed to be sweet. I saw a can of green beans with HFCS in it.
I wrote commentary about this here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1055092/the_truth_about_high_fructose_corn.html
It's possible you weren't meaning to specifically link sugar to obesity by stating the money should go to obesity research, but I wanted to clarify that point anyway - for you or for others - that sugar itself doesn't cause obesity.
Report
I wrote commentary about this here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1055092/the_truth_about_high_fructose_corn.html
It's possible you weren't meaning to specifically link sugar to obesity by stating the money should go to obesity research, but I wanted to clarify that point anyway - for you or for others - that sugar itself doesn't cause obesity.
September 29, 2009 12:29 PM
Be very wary of jumping on the anti-HFCS bandwagon. Although I agree that extra sweeteners, like HFCS, have no business in canned green beans (although really if I want to eat healthy, I'm not turning to canned green beans, yuck!), HFCS is a major scapegoat right now.
It isn't sugar. It isn't HFCS. It isn't even McDonald's. It's the portion size of everything we eat. Sugars, HFCS, and grease would all be tolerable risks to our health if we ate smaller quantities of them. But we eat TOO MUCH! Banning and blaming one or two food items without indicting our portion habits is like saying pinecones are deadly after having a tree fall on your house.
Report
It isn't sugar. It isn't HFCS. It isn't even McDonald's. It's the portion size of everything we eat. Sugars, HFCS, and grease would all be tolerable risks to our health if we ate smaller quantities of them. But we eat TOO MUCH! Banning and blaming one or two food items without indicting our portion habits is like saying pinecones are deadly after having a tree fall on your house.
September 29, 2009 12:59 PM
Sugar itself, sucrose, is unhealthy. Fructose and sucrose are also unhealthy. All three are empty calories. The way public health works is not quite the same as the way individual health works because it's a matter of averages and statistical differences. A properly designed tax would reduce obesity on the average even though many people would still get fat. Think about going to the grocery store and seeing the sugared sodas in a 12 pack at a dollar or two more than the diet sodas. Suddenly people are going to find they have the willpower to drink diet sodas after all. And once you start reducing your sugar intake in one area it helps in others because your addiction is reduced.
Report
September 29, 2009 05:12 PM
Diet soda isn't exactly healthier. The artificial sweeteners it contains have been shown to cause your body to produce carcinogens. The FDA has found many of them to contain benzene and other harmful compounds. Many of them contain more caffeine than their non-diet counterparts. They have been liked to increased metabolic syndrome and are a risk factor for increased weight gain and high levels of blood sugar. People who drink diet soda or more likely to eat unhealthy foods, and many believe this is because the artificial sweeteners habituate consumers to sweet tastes and make them crave it in other foods. I don't see why you would want people to drink diet diet soda while persecuting them for drinking normal soda.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-Diet-Soda-Safe?-We-Examine-the-Evidence&id=1390868
http://cancer.suite101.com/article.cfm/diet_sodas_and_cancer
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benzene_in_Soft_Drinks
http://www.naturalmatters.net/article.asp?article=2615&cat=7
http://www.thirdage.com/today/nutrition/does-diet-soda-make-you-fat
http://consumerist.com/272491/new-cancer-worries-for-diet-soda-drinkers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_soda
Google: diet drink carcinogen
and you'll get over half a million similar links.
Report
http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-Diet-Soda-Safe?-We-Examine-the-Evidence&id=1390868
http://cancer.suite101.com/article.cfm/diet_sodas_and_cancer
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Benzene_in_Soft_Drinks
http://www.naturalmatters.net/article.asp?article=2615&cat=7
http://www.thirdage.com/today/nutrition/does-diet-soda-make-you-fat
http://consumerist.com/272491/new-cancer-worries-for-diet-soda-drinkers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_soda
Google: diet drink carcinogen
and you'll get over half a million similar links.
September 29, 2009 06:00 PM
Similar links is right. No reputable medical journal or public health links, just new age natural food links.
Report
September 29, 2009 07:36 PM
If you do the research you'll find plenty of credible sources. Here are a few that you might like better:
American Psychological Association's Journal "Behavioral Neuroscience":
- - - quote - - -
We found that reducing the correlation between sweet taste and the caloric content of foods using artificial sweeteners in rats resulted in increased caloric intake, increased body weight, and increased adiposity, as well as diminished caloric compensation and blunted thermic responses to sweet-tasting diets. These results suggest that consumption of products containing artificial sweeteners may lead to increased body weight and obesity by interfering with fundamental homeostatic, physiological processes.
- - - end quote - - -
The Wall Street Journal
ABC News 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/23/health/main3089931.shtml CBS News 2007]
Los Angeles Times February 11, 2008
Los Angeles Times August 31, 2009
Report
American Psychological Association's Journal "Behavioral Neuroscience":
- - - quote - - -
We found that reducing the correlation between sweet taste and the caloric content of foods using artificial sweeteners in rats resulted in increased caloric intake, increased body weight, and increased adiposity, as well as diminished caloric compensation and blunted thermic responses to sweet-tasting diets. These results suggest that consumption of products containing artificial sweeteners may lead to increased body weight and obesity by interfering with fundamental homeostatic, physiological processes.
- - - end quote - - -
The Wall Street Journal
ABC News 2007
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/23/health/main3089931.shtml CBS News 2007]
Los Angeles Times February 11, 2008
Los Angeles Times August 31, 2009
September 29, 2009 11:21 PM
The Wall Street Journal does good reporting, but you do have to read beyond the headline. For instance, even in the first paragraph it says "a large but inconclusive study." and then goes on to quote experts criticizing the study. The APA rat study is more interesting, but pretty abstract. At any rate, they are very different from the countless baseless cancer scare attacks on every diet sweetener that has come along over the decades.
Report
September 29, 2009 02:39 PM
- Fact Refuted
The tax on gas is extremely low in the US, just a few cents per gallon, and people have come to drive gas guzzlers. In Europe, the tax on gas is quite high, equivalent to dollars per gallon, and people there have on the average bought high mileage per gallon economy cars.
"Cars average 36 mpg in Europe and 31 mpg in Japan vs. only 21 mpg in the United States. The reason is simple: Higher taxes..." money.cnn.com/2007/04/09/autos/pluggedin.../index.htm
Report
"Cars average 36 mpg in Europe and 31 mpg in Japan vs. only 21 mpg in the United States. The reason is simple: Higher taxes..." money.cnn.com/2007/04/09/autos/pluggedin.../index.htm
September 29, 2009 12:28 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/leading-researchers-propose-tax-s...
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/r2p_sweetend_beverages.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/06/diet-tip-watch-what-you-d_n_183652... Helpful Answer? (0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
The tax is an excellent idea. It is well documented that a tax on an item reduces its use. It does not stop people from buying; but, on the average it discourages it. The danger of sugar has been known for years but only recently have the major public health and medical associations been convinced that there is enough conclusive evidence and now they have begun to speak out.
Discouraging unhealthy drinks by means of taxes has been a part of American tradition since the founding of the country. President Washington led the troops to put down a rebellion against the tax on whiskey in western Pennsylvania. That tax had been chosen because the founders of our country felt that whiskey was a harmful drink which was being abused by too many (as opposed to beer and wine, which they praised as healthy). They needed to tax something, and they picked whiskey because it was an unhealthy drink.
Taxing drinks with added sugar would benefit public health by reducing obesity. Sodas with sugar have no nutritional value and are addictive. That's one of the insidious things about sugar, it's a highly refined chemical which is addictive even though it starts as an ordinary natural product. Corn syrup is as bad: sucrose, fructose, and glucose are the three types of sugar which are overconsumed because they are sold and used in refined form.
Naturally any such tax would not stop people drinking sugared soda, wipe out obesity, or balance the budget. However, it would do a bit towards each. Taxes on tobacco have reduced smoking, saving many lives. Taxes on sugared drinks would reduce obesity and other sugar related health problems by reducing their consumption. That would save money on health care while the taxes would provide some money for other purposes. A one cent tax per can has been estimated at 15 billion dollars a year. Something like 25 cents a can would be more reasonable, and could generate about 375 billion dollars a year. That's a lot. In so far as the tax reduced consumption, the amount of the tax would go down but the amount saved in health care would go up. It's a win-win situation.
Source(s):
Discouraging unhealthy drinks by means of taxes has been a part of American tradition since the founding of the country. President Washington led the troops to put down a rebellion against the tax on whiskey in western Pennsylvania. That tax had been chosen because the founders of our country felt that whiskey was a harmful drink which was being abused by too many (as opposed to beer and wine, which they praised as healthy). They needed to tax something, and they picked whiskey because it was an unhealthy drink.
Taxing drinks with added sugar would benefit public health by reducing obesity. Sodas with sugar have no nutritional value and are addictive. That's one of the insidious things about sugar, it's a highly refined chemical which is addictive even though it starts as an ordinary natural product. Corn syrup is as bad: sucrose, fructose, and glucose are the three types of sugar which are overconsumed because they are sold and used in refined form.
Naturally any such tax would not stop people drinking sugared soda, wipe out obesity, or balance the budget. However, it would do a bit towards each. Taxes on tobacco have reduced smoking, saving many lives. Taxes on sugared drinks would reduce obesity and other sugar related health problems by reducing their consumption. That would save money on health care while the taxes would provide some money for other purposes. A one cent tax per can has been estimated at 15 billion dollars a year. Something like 25 cents a can would be more reasonable, and could generate about 375 billion dollars a year. That's a lot. In so far as the tax reduced consumption, the amount of the tax would go down but the amount saved in health care would go up. It's a win-win situation.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/leading-researchers-propose-tax-s...
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/r2p_sweetend_beverages.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/06/diet-tip-watch-what-you-d_n_183652... Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
September 29, 2009 02:56 PM
By the way, I disagree with Mr Cohen mainly in that I think Coca-Cola C.E.O. Muhtar Kent ought to be executed. He is deliberately attempting to mislead people and the government for his own profit, just like the tobacco executives did. And, his product is statistically killing many people. If he didn't know, he'd have some excuse. But, the medical and public health experts agree so now he does know yet he continues to promote his unhealthy product. He doesn't even have the poor excuse that the tobacco folks did, in that they were fighting for their livelihood. Coca Cola could make plenty of profit on diet drinks alone, he just thinks he could make more by continuing the status quo.
Report
September 29, 2009 08:20 PM
Keep in mind that whether the projections say $15 billion or $375 billion, they'll be less once you decrease total sales. On top of that though, think about how much destruction of shareholder value there will be. I'm not saying shareholder value is going down $375 billion, but you still have to factor it in.
Report
September 29, 2009 11:29 PM
I did mention that if the tax returns go down, that would mean savings in health care. As for shareholder value, if it goes down that's a good thing. The people who invest in tobacco, sugar, etc etc rather than finding ethical stocks deserve financial misfortune.
Report
Answer this Question
View All Food and Drink QuestionsAsk a Conundrum
Please visit these retailers to purchase Conundrum or find the wine at these fine restaurants:
-
1991 St Helena Hwy
-
699 St Helena Hwy
-
1115 Main St
-
1321 Main St
-
Had a bottle of '96 Caymus Cab with dinner last night. Very nice. It is holding up well and pretty tasty!
11:34 a.m. March 21st, 2010 -
Caymus Family of Wines, a five-course dinner with wine pairings~www.ranchandcoast.com
3:05 p.m. March 20th, 2010 -
@ninasfeet @davidcook i see you a cakebread and raise you a caymus http://bit.ly/aA5O9s
10 a.m. March 19th, 2010 -
Caymus Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley ... http://bit.ly/cP95OV
8:43 a.m. March 19th, 2010 -
Dinner @ Bandera with an '07 bottle of Caymus w/my baybay xxx
11:27 p.m. March 18th, 2010
michelleld...
albanian
ewpldf
@albanian , I think you mistake my point. I was not seeking to prove that partial solutions are useless. On the contrary, I think this solution would be EXTREMELY "useful" because I believe the government defines useful in this scenario as extracting money from the populace without regard to health. My point is that this type of "solution" is morally wrong, oppressive, exploits addicts and has no legitimate place in a supposedly free society. This sort of kick them while they are down tax is just a way for people to justify stealing money from those who make choices that they disagree with. It is the moral equivalent of a group of thugs waiting outside a convenience store and robbing soda drinkers as they leave and then claiming it is for their own good because they plan to give a portion of the stolen money to charity. After all, the group of muggers outnumbers each soda drinker so they must be morally superior and such behavior would indeed discourage some people from drinking soda.
I agree, sticks and clubs can be very effective in getting people to part with their money and this is why they are sometimes used by muggers to scare their victims into compliance.
albanian