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?
Options
Replies
-
-
-
It's never been proven to be effective as it doesn't address the root cause - surplus calories.4
-
-
People who care about managing their weight and know how will choose lower calorie foods and drinks on their own if the information is available.
I don't think taxes to punish or manipulate people for their food or drink choices is healthy. I think education, good role models and positive reinforcement does more good long term for a healthier society. I think emphasizing that sugar makes people fat fools people into thinking weight management is about type of food not calories and keeps people fat and frustrated.
I am not a soda drinker. It does not impact me personally but I still think a soda tax is the wrong way to promote health.3 -
You aren't the soda police. People will buy it if they want it, tax or no.4
-
The first US tax on "sugar-sweetened beverages" was in Berkeley in 2015. Last April, there was a study showing that there was a decrease in SSB sales of 9.6%, although they take care to note that we still need more research in a wider variety of areas.
And what could the tax money be used for? Healthcare? I wouldn't hate that.
Just a thought!3 -
Sarahfaster wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Sarahfaster wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »For what purpose?
If we tax soda/other sweet beverages we would make it harder for people to purchase them and hopefully encourage people to not drink sugary drinks anymore
Why do you feel people should not drink sugary drinks?
Sugary drinks like soda and juice have A LOT of sugar in them. Women can have at MOST 25 grams of sugar a day and a 12-ounce coke has 39 grams of sugar in it. Americans have an obesity epidemic which is linked to the high sugar intake in our diets. If we impose a soda tax we could be drastically reducing the amount of soda intake and hopefully lower obesity rates.
Sugar consumption as well as carbohydrate consumption has been on the decline for a good 30 years...while obesity continues to rise. The obesity epidemic is due to vast over-consumption of calories in any form and increasingly sedentary lifestyles.
A tax won't decrease consumption of sugary drinks...that's been done with alcohol, etc and it doesn't change behavior.4 -
Sarahfaster wrote: »DoubleUbea wrote: »Did taxes stop people from buying alcohol or tobacco?
Yes! Taxes on cigarettes plus the wave of anti-tobacco advertisements drastically reduced the number of smokers
The tax didn't really do anything...advertisements and frankly public opinion has more to do with the reduction in smoking than anything else...that and if you're a smoker, you're basically ostracized to some small corner of a far off parking lot somewhere...3 -
Just heard on the radio that soda sales were down and snack sales were UP. Robbing soda to pay for chips. Taxing soda is not a cure for obesity. Taxing ciggies and alcohol is not a cure for alcoholism and lung cancer. It doesn't matter how pretentious or self-righteous we become. It doesn't matter how much order must be imposed in all of the food and drink chaos.
I hold these things to be self-evident. We must all take responsibility for ourselves. There are only choices and consequences. With all of the fomenting food revolution we have going on not one single new food protocol or food program has found the miracle cure for obesity. They promise the moon but they all fall short. If we closed all of the juice, beer, whiskey, rum, gin, vodka, tequila and soda factories down humans would find a substitute.
There's really nothing new under the sun. We've been through all of this before.
6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »The obesity epidemic comes from too many calories, period, regardless of the source. Excess added sugar can be problematic, but so can excess in any other food that puts a person over their calorie target. Can you cite the source for your 25 g sugar limit?
@AnvilHead do you happen to have the chart showing the trends for obesity plotted against sugar intake handy?
WHO suggesting no more than 25g of added sugars:
https://mashable.com/2015/03/04/who-sugar-50-25-grams/#y44rHu0B_qq92 -
No. I don’t. For one I don’t think it would really discourage people from buying it, what’s a few more cents. And two i don’t know why the government needs to be sticking their nose into my beverage purchase decisions lol5
-
Sarahfaster wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »The obesity epidemic comes from too many calories, period, regardless of the source. Excess added sugar can be problematic, but so can excess in any other food that puts a person over their calorie target. Can you cite the source for your 25 g sugar limit?
@AnvilHead do you happen to have the chart showing the trends for obesity plotted against sugar intake handy?
I can't seem to find your chart online when I search the source, although I'd encourage you to check out this website: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
I googled the name of that chart and it came right up.1 -
In Scotland we have recently had a sugar tax which includes sodas, I work in s cafe that sells sodas and have not noticed it making any difference to what people buy0
-
No I do not think we should tax soda. I assume your intent is to reduce obesity by punishing people who would consume high calorie low nutrition things and soda is just one example that is easy to pick out. Thing is not everyone who drinks soda is fat and not everyone who is fat drinks soda, so you are just kind of being oblique about it. If you want to do this why not just be direct and just ask for a tax on obese people given that obesity is what you are wanting to discourage through taxation right?
If that concept makes you uncomfortable maybe you should revisit why you think taxation is a good way of tackling obesity.28 -
In Scotland we have recently had a sugar tax which includes sodas, I work in s cafe that sells sodas and have not noticed it making any difference to what people buy
Well to be fair the idea is not just to discourage obesity it is also to help relieve some of the financial burden that obesity puts on the health care sector. If it were true that people who drank soda were fat then if they continue to buy soda then they are basically helping to pay for the health care system that will eventually likely have to support them.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »No I do not think we should tax soda. I assume your intent is to reduce obesity by punishing people who would consume high calorie low nutrition things and soda is just one example that is easy to pick out. Thing is not everyone who drinks soda is fat and not everyone who is fat drinks soda, so you are just kind of being oblique about it. If you want to do this why not just be direct and just ask for a tax on obese people given that obesity is what you are wanting to discourage through taxation right?
If that concept makes you uncomfortable maybe you should revisit why you think taxation is a good way of tackling obesity.
REALLY missing that awesome button right about now...9 -
This was introduced in the UK in April
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43659124
It isn't really a health thing, it is a money thing and the government thinks it can get away with it under health benefits. Those with money won't care, if it is as part of a meal out then water costs as much as soda so no change would be expected. If you are on a budget you will probably go down a brand level to a cheaper option, children don't pay tax so the pressure on parents will still exist.
If the brands are smart (and they are) they will give discounts on larger bottles, say 3 litres so you will buy the bigger bottle to save money. 50 years of research proves if you buy more you consume more and you will drink the 3 litre bottle in the same time you consumed the 2 litre bottle. Not long ago the major brands have reduced their bottle sizes from 2 litres to 1.75 litres so you just get less for the same money so people can still afford to buy it even on budget which will reduce the amount consumed marginally.
Overall I would expect the brands to have worked out how to sell the same amount whilst keeping their profits around the same and the government making people pay more for it so they can make a few £s.4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Ask and ye shall receive!
These types of taxes are called Pigouvian taxes which are taxes on goods that cause negative externalities. Basically, if someone buys a good that has some negative effect on others, the usually only pay for the good itself, which gives them enjoyment, but causes downsides for others who are not otherwise compensated (i.e. gas consumption causing smog and pollution, a neighbor who buys a loud stereo that disturbs the neighbors, etc.) . In general, Pigouvian taxes only really make sense if the money raised is used to offset the negative externalities for those who experience them. For example, taxes on gas could be used to reduce pollutants in the air, taxes on toxic waste could be used to offset medical expenses for those exposed to them, etc. Of course, they're also hard to target.
In this case, the soda tax, there are a number of problems. First, there doesn't seem to be a clear underlying problem they are trying to target with the tax. Is it obesity? Is it added sugar? Is it both? If it's added sugar, there are a number of other things that should be taxed as well that are being excluded, like candy for example. If the problem they are trying to address is obesity, the tax seems poorly applied. Obesity is due to excess calorie consumption, not sugar, so taxing sugar doesn't necessarily target the problem of obesity.
More importantly though, Pigouvian taxes are meant to offset negative externalities, and there isn't a clear externality here. In places with public health care such as the UK, the health care costs that arise from excess sugar consumption or obesity can be seen as negative externalities as they impose excess costs on everyone for the poor dietary choices of individuals. In these types of systems sugar taxes may make sense, as the taxes can be used to offset the extra health care costs associated with excessive sugar consumption. However, as far as I remember, the US health care system is still largely private, so each individual pays for their insurance themselves. In this type of system, Pigouvian taxes are a public market response to a private market problem. It's really up to health insurance companies themselves to create incentives to practice healthier eating habits or to offset the costs of poor eating habits, not the government.4 -
Sarahfaster wrote: »Do you think there should be a tax on sweet beverages like soda? or maybe even juice?
We have already implemented that here in the UK, we are paying like 18p or 24p per litre extra now depending on how much extra sugar has been added to the drink. currently the revenue has fallen due to fewer drinks containing this amount of sugar are on sale, Irn Bru have even stopped making their original full sugar drink now, and other companies like Britvic have cut sugar across their product range. I think it’s good that the government is actively trying to cut back people’s sugar intake and it has forced companies to create lower sugar versions of the drinks so we don’t feel the sting! I think obesity is caused by people eating wayy too many calories and sugar is a big factor in it, it makes me wonder if they are going to start taxing full fat products next or something!8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions