Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
AAP & AHA Recommending tax on sodas and sugary drinks
Options
Replies
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.
Doesn't seem very rational considering the time it usually takes to go somewhere else. For most people, taking a rational account of the value of their time, it rarely makes sense to even drive to a different gas station for a better price if it involves going out of the way.
Also, doesn't sound like a huge black market.
In some cases, literally the opposite sides of a street are different states. You better believe people in those areas make their buying decisions on taxes and the convenience factor.
State taxes on cigarettes are $1.98 a pack in IL vs $0.17 a pack in Missouri. It's about 1/2 mile to drive across the Mississippi River. You don't think people are bootlegging?2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.
Doesn't seem very rational considering the time it usually takes to go somewhere else. For most people, taking a rational account of the value of their time, it rarely makes sense to even drive to a different gas station for a better price if it involves going out of the way.
Also, doesn't sound like a huge black market.
In some cases, literally the opposite sides of a street are different states. You better believe people in those areas make their buying decisions on taxes and the convenience factor.
State taxes on cigarettes are $1.98 a pack in IL vs $0.17 a pack in Missouri. It's about 1/2 mile to drive across the Mississippi River. You don't think people are bootlegging?
As bootlegging refers to illegal manufacture and sale of goods, I'm not seeing why a difference in two different state taxes of an item are relevant. Do you perhaps have some idiosyncratic use of the term?
Now, all other pricing being equal, if it takes more than 15 minutes of time to go to Missouri in your example, it isn't economically rational for even a minimum wage earner to make the crossing, more so if other costs like gas and vehicle wear are involved. The idea gets even worse if we're talking the majority of people who don't live near a state border.
If you're going to try to claim people will be motivating by saving money, you're kind of making claim that undercuts itself when examined: going out of way to buy goods can be more costly, not less. Reduced consumption seems far more likely in most cases.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.
Doesn't seem very rational considering the time it usually takes to go somewhere else. For most people, taking a rational account of the value of their time, it rarely makes sense to even drive to a different gas station for a better price if it involves going out of the way.
Also, doesn't sound like a huge black market.
Depends on the risk and reward. Considering the proximity of a lower taxed region it would be unwise to place a burdensome tax when a competing body will take advantage.
A smart parasite doesn't kill the host.0 -
Instead of raising the cost of supposedly unhealthy items (because you know soda is only the first slip on a long, long slippery slope), how about we make healthy foods and drinks more affordable?0
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.
Doesn't seem very rational considering the time it usually takes to go somewhere else. For most people, taking a rational account of the value of their time, it rarely makes sense to even drive to a different gas station for a better price if it involves going out of the way.
Also, doesn't sound like a huge black market.
In some cases, literally the opposite sides of a street are different states. You better believe people in those areas make their buying decisions on taxes and the convenience factor.
State taxes on cigarettes are $1.98 a pack in IL vs $0.17 a pack in Missouri. It's about 1/2 mile to drive across the Mississippi River. You don't think people are bootlegging?
As bootlegging refers to illegal manufacture and sale of goods, I'm not seeing why a difference in two different state taxes of an item are relevant. Do you perhaps have some idiosyncratic use of the term?
Now, all other pricing being equal, if it takes more than 15 minutes of time to go to Missouri in your example, it isn't economically rational for even a minimum wage earner to make the crossing, more so if other costs like gas and vehicle wear are involved. The idea gets even worse if we're talking the majority of people who don't live near a state border.
If you're going to try to claim people will be motivating by saving money, you're kind of making claim that undercuts itself when examined: going out of way to buy goods can be more costly, not less. Reduced consumption seems far more likely in most cases.
Bootlegging also refers to transportation as well as manufacture, no idiosyncratic use of the term
verb (used without object), boot·legged, boot·leg·ging.
to make, transport, or sell something, especially liquor, illegally or without registration or payment of taxes
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/recording
Don't know how much you get out, but there are urban areas and small communities where it is literally possible to go a block and be in another state. It's generally a big discussion when a state is considering a tax increase on some item, retailers near the boarder are concerned about losing business to the other state.0 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Just say no to any and all product specific taxes. All they do is create a huge black market.
Always a very bad idea.
Gas tax is pretty hefty, I've never heard of anyone buying black market gas. Do you really think people are going to buy black market soda to avoid a ten cent tax? That doesn't sound very likely to me, it sounds like a boogeyman.
True, but it is pretty common for people who live in a state with high gas taxes go across the border to a neighboring state with lower gas taxes if they live near the border.
Doesn't seem very rational considering the time it usually takes to go somewhere else. For most people, taking a rational account of the value of their time, it rarely makes sense to even drive to a different gas station for a better price if it involves going out of the way.
Also, doesn't sound like a huge black market.
In some cases, literally the opposite sides of a street are different states. You better believe people in those areas make their buying decisions on taxes and the convenience factor.
State taxes on cigarettes are $1.98 a pack in IL vs $0.17 a pack in Missouri. It's about 1/2 mile to drive across the Mississippi River. You don't think people are bootlegging?
As bootlegging refers to illegal manufacture and sale of goods, I'm not seeing why a difference in two different state taxes of an item are relevant. Do you perhaps have some idiosyncratic use of the term?
Now, all other pricing being equal, if it takes more than 15 minutes of time to go to Missouri in your example, it isn't economically rational for even a minimum wage earner to make the crossing, more so if other costs like gas and vehicle wear are involved. The idea gets even worse if we're talking the majority of people who don't live near a state border.
If you're going to try to claim people will be motivating by saving money, you're kind of making claim that undercuts itself when examined: going out of way to buy goods can be more costly, not less. Reduced consumption seems far more likely in most cases.
Bootlegging also refers to transportation as well as manufacture, no idiosyncratic use of the term
verb (used without object), boot·legged, boot·leg·ging.
to make, transport, or sell something, especially liquor, illegally or without registration or payment of taxes
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/recording
Don't know how much you get out, but there are urban areas and small communities where it is literally possible to go a block and be in another state. It's generally a big discussion when a state is considering a tax increase on some item, retailers near the boarder are concerned about losing business to the other state.
Except the item isn't sold illegally or without lawful tax payment. The company selling the product isn't failing to pay the taxes for the sale.
And again, I'm not seeing the relevance of border regions to setting a policy that will influence an entire state. Sure, there are times people will shop for a lower price - I'm actually stating very clearly under which conditions it is a rational economic decision to bother with expending the time needed for a lower price - in this specific border case, 15 minutes, and based on a state with one of the lowest taxes on tobacco use because it is a state with a heavy tobacco industry presence, next to a state that bases policy on a largely on a dense urban population in a different region.
I think I get out enough to understand there are few states where the entire population lives within 15 minutes of a border, so basing tax policy on that seems unreasonable. On one hand, you seem to want to imply people are rational economic actors in one sense - they'll avoid higher prices - but also seem to want to think they're making decisions that are irrational - they'll not value their own time. If we consistently believe they'll act mostly rationally towards optimizing both, I think it becomes hard to escape the idea that the net result of a tax will be a reduction in consumption.
Well unless your whole argument is that people will purposefully avoid taxes just because they think they have something to prove by wasting time just to prove a point about hating government. Maybe I don't get out enough for this, but my impression isn't that most people care about sticking it to the government so much that they'll waste that kind of time on it.4 -
ultra_violets wrote: »Instead of raising the cost of supposedly unhealthy items (because you know soda is only the first slip on a long, long slippery slope), how about we make healthy foods and drinks more affordable?
Healthy foods and drinks are affordable. Water is hardly expensive, and as discussed on many threads, the claim that healthy foods are expensive isn't really true unless you define as healthy only organic or trendy brand named stuff or the latest in must have magical foods like ACV or virgin coconut oil or what not. Also, while one can debate whether meat is healthy or not, one reason meat is so cheap in the US is that feed corn benefits from subsidies. (Overall food in the US is a smaller percentage of income on average than ever, and cheaper than most places.)
I simply don't believe that someone eats a poor diet because more nutrient dense foods are more expensive, when cooking from whole foods is typically less expensive than eating lots of fast food or take out or brand named products where the main cost is marketing (snack foods and dessert items and soda and energy drinks) (all of really treat type foods vs. substitutes for a full meal). (I would believe that in individual cases the time and energy that cooking takes or is perceived to take can be a stumbling block.)
Veg and fruit are, of course, going to be less expensive when organic is not required, and when they are in season. IME, when they are not in season frozen is often much less expensive. My preference would be to stop distorting the market with subsidies but to encourage people on SNAP to buy healthy items by making them go farther when items such as fruits and veg are chosen (as is the case many places, for example when using them at various farmers markets here).1 -
Lemurcat2"My preference would be to stop distorting the market with subsidies but to encourage people on SNAP to buy healthy items by making them go farther when items such as fruits and veg are chosen (as is the case many places, for example when using them at various farmers markets here)."
Yes -- there have been studies that show when stamp recipients can get "bonuses" for using SNAP at farmers' markets, they purchase fruits/veggies at a significantly higher rate.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions