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.
Soda Tax
Replies
-
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »My county just implemented a tax on all "sweetened beverages", including those with artificial sweeteners. They say it is to combat obesity and encourage people to select "healthier" beverages. They said that there are "conflicting reports" on the health effects of artificial sweeteners. Whatever...obviously, the real reason is to increase revenue for the county. That is not up for debate. But, do you think a tax like this, despite the real reason behind it, really could have an effect of people's health? Will they really select a bottle of water instead of a Coke to avoid the tax? I'm thinking no.
Here's the details of the tax...it is one penny per ounce and applies to:
-Regular and diet sodas, sweetened teas, bottled sweetened coffee, sports drinks, energy drinks, any sweetened dairy beverage that is less than 50% milk, and juice products that are not 100% juice.
-This applies to all retailers, restaurants, bars, and vending machines, including fountain drinks in those establishments.
It does NOT apply to:
-100% fruit/vegetable juice
-Weight reduction/meal replacement beverages
-Made to order coffee drinks (Starbucks)
-Sparkling water
-Milk substitutes (almond, soy, etc.)
A penny per ounce can add up...I usually buy the 35 can case of Coke Zero at Costco. The tax will add $4.20 to the price (35 x 12oz). This is IN ADDITION to our regular 10% sales tax. I will be visiting a Costco in the next county over for my Coke Zero.
Would this tax discourage you from buying these beverages?
Holy crap! 10% sales tax on food?
And yes it would discourage me from buying because I'm a cheapskate. If it made sense to I would drive to the next county to purchase, but not if it wasn't cost effective. In NY they charge a nickel per can or bottle to encourage recycling and I always recycled to get my deposit back. Now that I'm in VA they don't charge the deposit.
And I agree with the above posts that mentions diet soda vs 500 calorie plus Starbucks drinks. Totally ridiculous.
No there is no 10% sales tax on food.
(Again, for the record, I don't agree with the tax at all)0 -
you and a whole lot of other folks will likely go to the next county to buy your Coke Zero (or whatever).
Not us city dwellers. Leaving the county to shop would cost so much more with travel and take so much time that it's not practical.
I can understand Starbucks. It didn't apply to any place that makes specialty drinks. But charging diet soda and not juice is nonsensical. But I'll pay it because five bucks a month doesn't break the bank
Eta: food tax is not 10 percent. That's the sales tax on goods, but food is, I think, 2.25 percent2 -
Taxes on gasoline and cigarettes have not stopped any noticeable number of people from driving or smoking...so I doubt a tax on certain beverages will see any appreciable drop in the consumption of the beverages.
IMHO and absolutely not based upon any research that I did.
Compare how many large SUVs and pick up trucks are on US roads vs Europe. Gas in the US is around $2.50 a gallon, in Europe it's around $6.00 a gallon. The vast majority of the difference is taxes. People in Europe reduce their consumption by buying little fuel efficient vehicles, that is how they are offsetting the taxes.3 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Would this tax discourage you from buying these beverages?
Depending on how much I enjoyed them vs. something without the tax, it might.
I mostly drink diet soda (not all that much) at work, where it's purchased by my employer. I did buy a LaCroix the other day when at the store and might otherwise have gotten a diet Coke, in part because Walgreens was apparently charging people buying LaCroix and I wanted to see if they would (the law doesn't include LaCroix, since it has neither sugar nor artificial sweetener).
Should the county care if I buy LaCroix vs. diet soda? Can't see why, but I also am not particularly bothered by it.
Would I drive out of the county to buy diet soda? No way, I'd much more likely pay the tax, it would be cheaper for me. Will I pay it? I'm sure, at times, it probably won't much affect how much I buy the taxed soda, which is not all that much.
I think this is unquestionably a money-making effort by the county. However, I do think there's some evidence that taxes reduce consumption some -- has with cigarettes and there's at least some evidence it has with alcohol (see https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/the-wages-of-sin-taxes/474327/).
Do I think it's a good idea from a policy perspective? Not really, but how we find out if it's a good idea or does anything that people want done is by jurisdictions experimenting with it, and those desperate for cash (like Cook County) are among the ones most likely to do so.
Possible problem with this: soda consumption has been falling anyway, so you can't assume any decrease is due to the tax without doing good comparisons (and taking into account any possible increases in neighboring counties).1 -
*grin* Since I live spitting distance from the border of not only the county but the state, I'd probably avoid the tax by making sure I made my beverage purchases when I happened to be across the line.0
-
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »My county just implemented a tax on all "sweetened beverages", including those with artificial sweeteners. They say it is to combat obesity and encourage people to select "healthier" beverages. They said that there are "conflicting reports" on the health effects of artificial sweeteners. Whatever...obviously, the real reason is to increase revenue for the county. That is not up for debate. But, do you think a tax like this, despite the real reason behind it, really could have an effect of people's health? Will they really select a bottle of water instead of a Coke to avoid the tax? I'm thinking no.
Here's the details of the tax...it is one penny per ounce and applies to:
-Regular and diet sodas, sweetened teas, bottled sweetened coffee, sports drinks, energy drinks, any sweetened dairy beverage that is less than 50% milk, and juice products that are not 100% juice.
-This applies to all retailers, restaurants, bars, and vending machines, including fountain drinks in those establishments.
It does NOT apply to:
-100% fruit/vegetable juice
-Weight reduction/meal replacement beverages
-Made to order coffee drinks (Starbucks)
-Sparkling water
-Milk substitutes (almond, soy, etc.)
A penny per ounce can add up...I usually buy the 35 can case of Coke Zero at Costco. The tax will add $4.20 to the price (35 x 12oz). This is IN ADDITION to our regular 10% sales tax. I will be visiting a Costco in the next county over for my Coke Zero.
Would this tax discourage you from buying these beverages?
Holy crap! 10% sales tax on food?
And yes it would discourage me from buying because I'm a cheapskate. If it made sense to I would drive to the next county to purchase, but not if it wasn't cost effective. In NY they charge a nickel per can or bottle to encourage recycling and I always recycled to get my deposit back. Now that I'm in VA they don't charge the deposit.
And I agree with the above posts that mentions diet soda vs 500 calorie plus Starbucks drinks. Totally ridiculous.
No there is no 10% sales tax on food.
(Again, for the record, I don't agree with the tax at all)
That is true. But in Chicago/Illinois candy, soda, and alcohol are not considered "food", so they are taxed at the higher regular sales tax rate.2 -
I only really consume soda @ work, so it wouldn't really effect me. That said, the tax seems a little silly. Calories per 8oz or whatever is going to be more relevant than whether or not it has sugar.0
-
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »do you think a tax like this, despite the real reason behind it, really could have an effect of people's health?
They've had a tax on plastic soda bottles here for a couple decades and bottle consumption is still high. A soda tax will probably have the same negligible effect. But it does make politicians and bureaucrats look like they're working, so they don't get fired.
1 -
Did you just say any effect short of 100% is negligible?1
-
Maybe not negligible, but perhaps not a significant enough effect to justify what they are putting retailers and restaurants through to implement this tax.
Restaurants can't offer free refills of soda anymore, because it needs to be taxed by the ounce. Bars have to figure out exactly how much Coke is in their "Jack and Coke" and tax based on that. Does it matter how much of the glass is ice? It's just a little wacky and not really well thought out.0 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Restaurants can't offer free refills of soda anymore, because it needs to be taxed by the ounce. Bars have to figure out exactly how much Coke is in their "Jack and Coke" and tax based on that. Does it matter how much of the glass is ice? It's just a little wacky and not really well thought out.
They can offer free refills (I was at a restaurant last night, bought a diet soda, and got free refills). I checked to see if this was on the up and up, since it didn't even cross my mind, and although this is confusing I think it says it's fine, just charge the tax on the amount sold (the first drink, not the refills):
"How should the tax be imposed when the retailer offers unlimited refills and does not know if a customer gets no refills or multiple refills?... The ordinance requires the tax to be applied to each ounce sold. The retailer has the discretion to offer refills, but must assure tax is remitted per ounce sold. If a 20oz beverage is sold, the tax is $0.20. The addition of ice is at the discretion of the retailer/customer. If the business uses cups with an ice fill line, where they have already determined the number of ounces that fill the cup, the business can submit that information to the Department as proof of the number of ounces sold."1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Restaurants can't offer free refills of soda anymore, because it needs to be taxed by the ounce. Bars have to figure out exactly how much Coke is in their "Jack and Coke" and tax based on that. Does it matter how much of the glass is ice? It's just a little wacky and not really well thought out.
They can offer free refills (I was at a restaurant last night, bought a diet soda, and got free refills). I checked to see if this was on the up and up, since it didn't even cross my mind, and although this is confusing I think it says it's fine, just charge the tax on the amount sold (the first drink, not the refills):
"How should the tax be imposed when the retailer offers unlimited refills and does not know if a customer gets no refills or multiple refills?... The ordinance requires the tax to be applied to each ounce sold. The retailer has the discretion to offer refills, but must assure tax is remitted per ounce sold. If a 20oz beverage is sold, the tax is $0.20. The addition of ice is at the discretion of the retailer/customer. If the business uses cups with an ice fill line, where they have already determined the number of ounces that fill the cup, the business can submit that information to the Department as proof of the number of ounces sold."
There's a lot of confusion with the implementation. If it's self-serve, the restaurant has no control over what the consumer does with that cup as far as ice and refills. But, if a server is bringing the free refills, it is likely that the restaurant is simply shouldering the tax so as to not burden their customers with it. Restaurants are paying the tax up-front from their suppliers.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Restaurants can't offer free refills of soda anymore, because it needs to be taxed by the ounce. Bars have to figure out exactly how much Coke is in their "Jack and Coke" and tax based on that. Does it matter how much of the glass is ice? It's just a little wacky and not really well thought out.
They can offer free refills (I was at a restaurant last night, bought a diet soda, and got free refills). I checked to see if this was on the up and up, since it didn't even cross my mind, and although this is confusing I think it says it's fine, just charge the tax on the amount sold (the first drink, not the refills):
"How should the tax be imposed when the retailer offers unlimited refills and does not know if a customer gets no refills or multiple refills?... The ordinance requires the tax to be applied to each ounce sold. The retailer has the discretion to offer refills, but must assure tax is remitted per ounce sold. If a 20oz beverage is sold, the tax is $0.20. The addition of ice is at the discretion of the retailer/customer. If the business uses cups with an ice fill line, where they have already determined the number of ounces that fill the cup, the business can submit that information to the Department as proof of the number of ounces sold."
That's nuts.
The beverage dispensers dispense a syrup. Won't be long before the tax is on the amount used by the business - i.e. at the distributor level. Otherwise the tax should be a flat tax per - oh never mind. That hurts my head to even contemplate. It's Sunday, yo.
What a mess for retailers.
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Restaurants can't offer free refills of soda anymore, because it needs to be taxed by the ounce. Bars have to figure out exactly how much Coke is in their "Jack and Coke" and tax based on that. Does it matter how much of the glass is ice? It's just a little wacky and not really well thought out.
They can offer free refills (I was at a restaurant last night, bought a diet soda, and got free refills). I checked to see if this was on the up and up, since it didn't even cross my mind, and although this is confusing I think it says it's fine, just charge the tax on the amount sold (the first drink, not the refills):
"How should the tax be imposed when the retailer offers unlimited refills and does not know if a customer gets no refills or multiple refills?... The ordinance requires the tax to be applied to each ounce sold. The retailer has the discretion to offer refills, but must assure tax is remitted per ounce sold. If a 20oz beverage is sold, the tax is $0.20. The addition of ice is at the discretion of the retailer/customer. If the business uses cups with an ice fill line, where they have already determined the number of ounces that fill the cup, the business can submit that information to the Department as proof of the number of ounces sold."
That's nuts.
The beverage dispensers dispense a syrup. Won't be long before the tax is on the amount used by the business - i.e. at the distributor level. Otherwise the tax should be a flat tax per - oh never mind. That hurts my head to even contemplate. It's Sunday, yo.
What a mess for retailers.
Yeah, I assume they will clarify it. I expect something like the ridiculous plastic bag roll out with ever changing rules. It seems like it would be easier to exempt restaurants/bars, IMO.
I don't feel sorry for retailers given the mark-up, though. I paid $3 for a regular glass of diet soda. Got charged for one even though I got a refill. There's not a specific tax line beyond the overall tax on the bill, so maybe the tax is in the $3, but that's pretty standard for a restaurant soda IME.
I can't imagine it's tougher than with alcohol, although there of course they are also somewhat restricted in what standard sizes are and cannot do free refills for reasons other than taxes (although my knowledge about the rules on alcohol sales in IL is rusty).0 -
Wonder if it effects the soda stream products? I am kind of doubting it, since it said that 'additive powders and syrups' aren't taxed.0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Did you just say any effect short of 100% is negligible?
Uh, no - i'm saying the effect on obesity levels will be close to zero. People will simply pay the tax like they do the bottle fee, or they'll switch from Coke to the cheaper generic brands of cola.. or to fruit drinks, which have similar calorie levels.
Soda consumption has already fallen 23% the last 20 years and is at a 30-year low. Did obesity go down? Nope, it rose 23%. It's not the soda.
Since obesity is from a calorie surplus, why not tax all food in proportion to its calorie content, and also tax anything that reduces activity levels, including computers, cars, and chairs. This is ridiculous of course, which is why singling out a beverage is ridiculous. It's just a feel-good, nanny state move that ignores the real issue, which is CICO. We can't tax our way out of that.
www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-drinking-less-soda-2016-3
www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db219.htm
5 -
A sugar tax will soon be implemented in the UK on soft drinks. And I'm all for it. Soft drinks have no nutritional benefits, I've always viewed soft drinks as a luxury but some people drink them like they're water which is not right. And it's our NHS that has to deal with these people when they get diabetes.8
-
I know exactly what county this is as I live nearby (outside of your county thankfully).
If anyplace else in the nation implemented this tax, I might actually think they were doing this in the best interest of the public.
Because of where it is, this is nothing but trying to generate another tax revenue stream. Personally, I am 100% against it in this case, just because I think the politicians are BSing about their reasons for the tax.2 -
If that's the case, water should be free. I find these taxes to be stupid and not at all about health and more about another way to squeeze money out of the populace.4
-
czmiles926 wrote: »A sugar tax will soon be implemented in the UK on soft drinks. And I'm all for it. Soft drinks have no nutritional benefits, I've always viewed soft drinks as a luxury but some people drink them like they're water which is not right. And it's our NHS that has to deal with these people when they get diabetes.
Are they including drinks with artificial sweeteners or just those with sugar?
That's a big issue I have with this tax...that it includes no-calorie, sugar-free drinks.1 -
The questions in the OP are would the tax have an impact on people's health and would impact your beverage buying choices.
Health impact- It is not making much sense what they want people to consume less of.. If sugar is the issue they are not taxing all sugar drinks and are taxing artificially sweetened drinks. If calories are the concern they are skipping taxing high calorie coffee drinks but taxing diet pop. I don't think it will change most people's health.
I don't think people view food or drinks in the same way they view cigarettes and what is healthy/unhealthy is less clearly defined so I don't think taxing would have the same impact.
Behavior impact- I drink water or unsweetened tea. My family drinks pop occasionally. The tax would probably not change our beverage consumption.
.
1 -
I know exactly what county this is as I live nearby (outside of your county thankfully).
If anyplace else in the nation implemented this tax, I might actually think they were doing this in the best interest of the public.
Because of where it is, this is nothing but trying to generate another tax revenue stream. Personally, I am 100% against it in this case, just because I think the politicians are BSing about their reasons for the tax.
Actually, they seem to be completely open about the fact it's for money raising, and I don't think anyone is in denial about that. When it got delayed because of the challenge, ALL the talk was about what that did to the budget.1 -
-
Hmm I think if a whole country (like in the UK) does it vs. a county in the US, it will be different. Like people have mentioned, they would just go to the next county over (which is more realistic for some, but not all, people). A country wide tax? Maybe it would have more of an effect, but it likely won't change the minds of a huge number of people who really like their soda, so it's revenue. If it does have an effect (moreso in the UK with their health system), and it helps reduce financial burden of diabetes or obesity on the healthcare system, that is again money for the government (either through taxes or through cost reduction). Theoretically speaking of course, but I think the audience and implementation would be important to consider.
I don't think it is too helpful (at this point) in the US, but who knows?1 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Maybe not negligible, but perhaps not a significant enough effect to justify what they are putting retailers and restaurants through to implement this tax.
Restaurants can't offer free refills of soda anymore, because it needs to be taxed by the ounce. Bars have to figure out exactly how much Coke is in their "Jack and Coke" and tax based on that. Does it matter how much of the glass is ice? It's just a little wacky and not really well thought out.
Restaurants are losing money because they have to charge for something they used to give away for free and all their competition does too?1 -
czmiles926 wrote: »A sugar tax will soon be implemented in the UK on soft drinks. And I'm all for it. Soft drinks have no nutritional benefits, I've always viewed soft drinks as a luxury but some people drink them like they're water which is not right. And it's our NHS that has to deal with these people when they get diabetes.
Sugar doesn't cause diabetes.....6 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
Would this tax discourage you from buying these beverages?
No, given my income level.
If I was poorer I would simply buy a cheaper alternative.
1 -
We've had a soda tax for years where I live. All soda, regardless of type of sweetener.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »We've had a soda tax for years where I live. All soda, regardless of type of sweetener.
Since you've had it for years, did they reach any conclusions on whether it was effective in curbing the consumption of these drinks?0 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »We've had a soda tax for years where I live. All soda, regardless of type of sweetener.
Since you've had it for years, did they reach any conclusions on whether it was effective in curbing the consumption of these drinks?
I have no idea. I'm not even sure if that's a reason they gave for enacting it. It's been so long IDK what reason they gave but I always suspected it was just a pleasure tax type thing.
We have an alcohol tax too and that doesn't slow me down.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions