Tax on soda

[zqt3344 21]

Then let us tax the clothes that you wear each day! Yes great idea for you liberal tax and spend wingnuts!

I mean that just because you are poor doesn't mean you must or in fact will buy a lot of soda. That some do, and that becomes a large part of their budget is definitely a problem, but the problem is not a function of being poor so adding a tax on to it is not some evil plot to make poor people poorer.

Perhaps your problem is that low income families should not be taxed on consumer goods at the same rate as higher income people? I personally don't consider that a problem, but it seems to be what you are getting at. Now, if someone suggested taxing milk I would be more inclined to believe that it was unfair to the lower income families.

My problem is that the effect will be a larger hit against the poor as a whole. It doesn't matter that it's not the goal (e.g. an evil plot to make poor people poorer), but it will be the result. I don't see this as being an issue of low income families being taxed at the same rate as higher income people - on the contrary, it is taxing low income families at a higher rate. Excise taxes levied against certain goods which happen to make a larger part of the budget of poor people than rich people are regressive. I guess you can argue that it's not an automatic tax against the poor, but that would be like saying that a yacht tax is meant to raise taxes on yacht owners, not to effect a progressive tax.

[Jenn! 918]

I've heard the argument a bunch of times about how poor people DO have worse nutrition because of things like fast food being cheaper, various unhealthy food sometimes cheaper than healthy. Produce and fruit are not cheap. If you think they are, then it's because you maybe always have bought at the same level you do now. But it's not cheap. It's cheaper to buy crappy food a lot of the time. I am not trying to apply that to this soda tax but you can't say nutrition and economic status don't impact each other.

I think that's true. And like Gene Hunt said, it's not just cost, but convenience. I could whip up some lentils and pasta for dirt cheap, but it takes longer than opening up a box of Kraft macaroni and cheese.

I'm not saying that the poor don't have access to healthier eating, but they often don't make that choice. In the end taxes on unhealthy food will disproportionately affect the poor.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I've heard the argument a bunch of times about how poor people DO have worse nutrition because of things like fast food being cheaper, various unhealthy food sometimes cheaper than healthy. Produce and fruit are not cheap. If you think they are, then it's because you maybe always have bought at the same level you do now. But it's not cheap. It's cheaper to buy crappy food a lot of the time. I am not trying to apply that to this soda tax but you can't say nutrition and economic status don't impact each other.

There was actually a study a few months back that said exactly the opposite - that contrary to popular belief that there was no significant connection to socio-economic status and nutrition.

Its not difficult to imagine - if the wife and I go to Wendys we're looking at at least $12-$15 for one meal. For the same $$$ I can make a crock pot stew that lasts 2-3 days with enough left over to freeze.

In terms of what costs the most in grocery stores - I'm looking at things like breakfast cereals that cost anywhere up to about $4.75 for a 15 oz box (and that's no exaggeration).

Even Microwave meals that you can buy for 2 for $5 on a club card sale is still very poor economy against what you can make yourself for the same money.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[Jenn! 918]

I've heard the argument a bunch of times about how poor people DO have worse nutrition because of things like fast food being cheaper, various unhealthy food sometimes cheaper than healthy. Produce and fruit are not cheap. If you think they are, then it's because you maybe always have bought at the same level you do now. But it's not cheap. It's cheaper to buy crappy food a lot of the time. I am not trying to apply that to this soda tax but you can't say nutrition and economic status don't impact each other.

There was actually a study a few months back that said exactly the opposite - that contrary to popular belief that there was no significant connection to socio-economic status and nutrition.

Its not difficult to imagine - if the wife and I go to Wendys we're looking at at least $12-$15 for one meal. For the same $$ I can make a crock pot stew that lasts 2-3 days with enough left over to freeze.

Hmmm, I didn't see that study. But then how does one explain the correlation between socio-economic status and obesity?

[Peikko 1,575]

I mean that just because you are poor doesn't mean you must or in fact will buy a lot of soda. That some do, and that becomes a large part of their budget is definitely a problem, but the problem is not a function of being poor so adding a tax on to it is not some evil plot to make poor people poorer.

Perhaps your problem is that low income families should not be taxed on consumer goods at the same rate as higher income people? I personally don't consider that a problem, but it seems to be what you are getting at. Now, if someone suggested taxing milk I would be more inclined to believe that it was unfair to the lower income families.

My problem is that the effect will be a larger hit against the poor as a whole. It doesn't matter that it's not the goal (e.g. an evil plot to make poor people poorer), but it will be the result. I don't see this as being an issue of low income families being taxed at the same rate as higher income people - on the contrary, it is taxing low income families at a higher rate. Excise taxes levied against certain goods which happen to make a larger part of the budget of poor people than rich people are regressive. I guess you can argue that it's not an automatic tax against the poor, but that would be like saying that a yacht tax is meant to raise taxes on yacht owners, not to effect a progressive tax.

Maybe I am wrong, but I can't believe there are that many people who's budget is so skewed toward soda at the exclusion of everything else that putting a tax on it is really going to be a problem. I said at the start that I didn't believe that putting a tax on soda was going to reduce the amount of soda people actually drink, not in and of itself but drinking vast quantities of soda by the country as a whole is a burden on the health services and a tax on this like a tax on alcohol and cigarettes is not a bad idea at all.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I've heard the argument a bunch of times about how poor people DO have worse nutrition because of things like fast food being cheaper, various unhealthy food sometimes cheaper than healthy. Produce and fruit are not cheap. If you think they are, then it's because you maybe always have bought at the same level you do now. But it's not cheap. It's cheaper to buy crappy food a lot of the time. I am not trying to apply that to this soda tax but you can't say nutrition and economic status don't impact each other.

There was actually a study a few months back that said exactly the opposite - that contrary to popular belief that there was no significant connection to socio-economic status and nutrition.

Its not difficult to imagine - if the wife and I go to Wendys we're looking at at least $12-$15 for one meal. For the same $$ I can make a crock pot stew that lasts 2-3 days with enough left over to freeze.

Hmmm, I didn't see that study. But then how does one explain the correlation between socio-economic status and obesity?

It was one of the threads on here from a while back - can probably find it in the archives.

There are a lot of reasons why people are obese - it isn't only food related. A big part of it is sedentary lifestyles. Doesn't help when public schools cut back on PE or that in many urban areas (including my town) there are very few recreational parks that kids can go to.

[Jenn! 918]

I mean that just because you are poor doesn't mean you must or in fact will buy a lot of soda. That some do, and that becomes a large part of their budget is definitely a problem, but the problem is not a function of being poor so adding a tax on to it is not some evil plot to make poor people poorer.

Perhaps your problem is that low income families should not be taxed on consumer goods at the same rate as higher income people? I personally don't consider that a problem, but it seems to be what you are getting at. Now, if someone suggested taxing milk I would be more inclined to believe that it was unfair to the lower income families.

My problem is that the effect will be a larger hit against the poor as a whole. It doesn't matter that it's not the goal (e.g. an evil plot to make poor people poorer), but it will be the result. I don't see this as being an issue of low income families being taxed at the same rate as higher income people - on the contrary, it is taxing low income families at a higher rate. Excise taxes levied against certain goods which happen to make a larger part of the budget of poor people than rich people are regressive. I guess you can argue that it's not an automatic tax against the poor, but that would be like saying that a yacht tax is meant to raise taxes on yacht owners, not to effect a progressive tax.

Maybe I am wrong, but I can't believe there are that many people who's budget is so skewed toward soda at the exclusion of everything else that putting a tax on it is really going to be a problem and you know what?

I guess I'm relying more than a bit on the slippery slope argument (next will be the Hamburger Helper tax!). But a family of 4 or 5 could easily go through a 12-pack of soda a day, which amounted to $25/month. I think that's a lot to a low-income family, not so much for a higher-income one.

drinking vast quantities of soda by the country as a whole is a burden on the health services and a tax on this like a tax on alcohol and cigarettes is not a bad idea at all.

Well, I think that's a decent argument for the tax. The revenue will largely be going towards funding universal health care, which will disproportionately benefit those soda drinkers.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, now the slippery slope is possible.

I sometimes think we should put a tax on all food that isn't really food, but that's very hard to express in terms that could be logically implemented and that would have no impact on genuinely nutritious food stuffs.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ah, now the slippery slope is possible.

I sometimes think we should put a tax on all food that isn't really food, but that's very hard to express in terms that could be logically implemented and that would have no impact on genuinely nutritious food stuffs.

Unless the tax is implemented on things that have X amount of added salt or sugar.

I think some public health limits should be placed on chain restaurants too. We were at a chain mexican place in CA a few months back and the service took so long we got to reading the nutrition card - 4000mg of salt (and 35g saturated fat) in just one meal alone.... That $hit ought to be illegal.

[Peikko 1,575]

No ######, the amount of salt in some processed foods and fast foods is virtually criminal. Of course, we are all at liberty to consume lethal doses of toxic substances - this is America

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No ######, the amount of salt in some processed foods and fast foods is virtually criminal. Of course, we are all at liberty to consume lethal doses of toxic substances - this is America

Well it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if all states followed the example of NY, and require any food establishment to include the calorie count on all of their menus.

Its actually quite deceiving - things that you'd think would be healthier (like sauteed vegetables) ended up being worse than a serving of refried beans with cheese. #######?

[Rhiannercakes 14]

I'm already used to having tax on my Diet Pepsi (And paying almost 5 dollars a case), so this would be nothing new to me.

(At least I'm pretty sure I get taxed when I buy it)

Edited October 5, 2009 by Rhiann

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Why not tax the health issues directly though, rather than tax things that *might* lead to health issues?

Because then it's already too late.

I'm sure that people who drink soda in moderation can afford 20c or whatever the tax is going to be.

Those who drink nothing but soda will be hardest hit - which is the idea.

That makes sense if you really believe that a tax will result in less consumption. I don't - the tax isn't high enough. Make a 2-liter bottle of Coke $10, and then maybe you'll see some results. I think this is essentially a poverty tax, not a luxury tax.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Maybe. $0.07/can would mean that if the heavy soda-drinking family drinks a 12-pack every day, that's $25/month. Alternatively, that's just less money to buy fruit or go to the doctor's. I'm not convinced that people who drink so much soda every day will rebudget their finances in such a way to really improve their health.

nor am i

[trailmix 77]

Maybe. $0.07/can would mean that if the heavy soda-drinking family drinks a 12-pack every day, that's $25/month. Alternatively, that's just less money to buy fruit or go to the doctor's. I'm not convinced that people who drink so much soda every day will rebudget their finances in such a way to really improve their health.

nor am i

But it's not a trytomakepeoplehealthier tax - it's a punishment tax.