It is no secret that childhood obesity is on the rise and in response to this a excise tax on sugary beverages has been proposed. It would add a few pennies on to sodas that contained less than 70% of fruit juice, and no diet drinks would be effected. The revenue from this would benefit expanding the health care system. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to these types of sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years. Those in favor say the tax would lower soda consumption, reduce health problems and save medical costs. Plus, at least a dozen states already have some type of taxes on sugary beverages.
As expected this tax has many that oppose it, those including lobby groups that represent the big two soda companies, Coca Cola and Pepsi co. They claim that this tax will hurt only those with a low income.
Once a tax such as the soda tax is announced it is hard not wonder what will be taxed next. Cigarette taxes were just added, but why not taxes on companies that use excess amount of trans fats or a tax on alcohol. A tax on things that are unhealthy is understandable especially if the revenue brought in went to benefit health care or education programs to teach children how to be responsible adults. Maybe if the soda was just a few more cents than the healthier fruit juice more people would buy healthier products. I think a big problem with our obesity epidemic is that the food that is bad for you is much cheaper than the food of high quality that is healthier.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're right, bad food is cheaper than good food, but I don't think obesity is because of food, I think it's the lack of activity and too much work. The bad thing about living in a developed country is that you work all your life, and most of the money go to bills and taxes. We find ourselves worrying about bills and work that we spend almost no time doing other activities that sustains the body. I kinda think elevators should be for old people, and it should be a crime to drive anywhere less than a mile during summer if you are not old or disabled. If people have to worry less about bills and taxes, more about family and daily activities, there would be more to do than work, eat, sleep and obesity would be rare.
ReplyDeleteI don't really know enough about obesity rates or causation factors to have a firm opinion. I do know that the issue is more complicated than it appears.
ReplyDeleteHigh obesity rates are a trend which appears in all societies that have copious amounts of food. But these rates can be aggravated by an atmosphere of excessive self-indulgence. The origins of unhealthy products are not lobby groups or corporations, even if they may produce such products.
The ultimate origin is us. Market demand encourages the manufacture of products which generate obesity. If there was no demand, then supply would evaporate, as companies would move on to more appealing products in order to derive income.
A crude equation would be:
People have disposable money + less healthy foods taste great + excellent marketing of less healthy foods + less healthy foods are widely available + people are inactive for whatever personal or social reasons = higher obesity rates.
The same equation roughly goes for cigarettes too.
Since a tax would affect only one factor in that line of variables, and only slightly, it would have only a marginal effect on actual obesity rates. People buy unhealthy products based on self-gratification, rather than cost-effectiveness. A person habituated to monster energy drinks or Coke is unlikely to buy vitamin water as an alternative just because it is cheaper. A person accustomed to buying McDonalds for lunch is unlikely to detour to the local Whole Foods store to buy a turkey sandwich purely on the because of a small increase in cost for their regular choice. It is a lifestyle, and not a rational cost-benefit analysis choice.
From a purely technocratic view, exempting considerations whether it is right for the government to engage in social engineering to alter private habits, a few extra cents on a product would be unlikely to influence behavior. I could be wrong.
The chief result of such a tax would likely be complaints from consumers, and rightly so.
That is sidestepping the question of what makes a “sin tax” legitimate, or if Congress should attempt to legislate “good private habits”. I don’t think that it should without a far-reaching and powerful case compelling us to.
So, I am cold to the idea.
Wow a soda tax?? Like you mentioned in your post..."what's next?" While I can definitely see points from both sides of the argument, I do think that raising the tax on sugary drinks will not have much of an effect on the overall consumption. In my opinion, most people will still be willing to spend the extra money on the sugary drinks and will just cut costs elsewhere if need be. As was mentioned in a previous comment, the obesity problem in America is not due to diet alone. It is a combination of poor diet and lack of exercise. Also, people will usually only change their habits when they decide to and an extra tax on their favorite sugary drinks will not, in my opinion, change their minds.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the expansion of taxes that bothers me here, it's the sheer uselessness of the idea. How will this affect childhood obesity levels? It's not kids who buy the sodas, it's their parents, who can easily switch their kids to healthier options if they so choose. The ones who will be affected most are us; the college students. I'm pretty broke, so making a 12-pack suddenly cost 6 bucks makes it effectively unaffordable for me. Plus, a lot of us all but need the caffeine to function properly. I could switch to coffee, but that has other issues. It does nothing to solve the problem, and only makes life harder for other groups.
ReplyDeleteA soda tax, like I just stated in my blog, we can't win the war on drugs & we can't win the war on obesity. Newsflash!!!!! People love to eat junk!!! This is all about control, not to assist in America's obesity problem.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that we cannot police people in what to do or eat BUT there is a bit of validity here. We tax people who smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. Two things that are not good for you (alcohol in large consumption is really bad for your health..) Why not tax sugar or high fat foods? It makes sense. Obviously with the rise in child obesity its very apparent some parents have become very indifferent to how they feed their children. Quite honestly, if we were to have a tax on high fat/ high sugar foods it MAY sway people to buy healthier food items..
ReplyDeleteRegardless of how you think about this idea.. We cant change the lazy attitudes of people.. If they choose to eat bad food because they do not want to cook for themselves (same for parents with their children)- maybe this is a form of natural selection..
Sounds evil but it is true in a way..
This is a tough one!!! If you put the tax on it would hurt the business like coke and pepsi. But if you do maybe people would buy the healthier drinks which would help with health, but it is true that the cheaper stuff is the unhealthy stuff. And the cheap stuff is only what people can afford these days. Espcecially with the economy and people out of work. So it is a catch 22. And great point about, what would they tax next??? Maybe we all just need to drink water!
ReplyDelete