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
-
I think there are people who have certain sensitivities to sugar. As far as taxing sugar filled soda, I don't agree with it if its done as a form of punishment, or its making people pay for their 'sins'.
I can't see that there is any sound evidence proving sugar causes obesity. How many stick thin people do you see drinking up their tea with three or four spoonfuls of sugar in it? Plenty enough to realize its not sugar that's fattening us up.
2 -
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.
In the US government pays more than 50% of healthcare costs (through taxes), so they really do have an incentive to keep costs low with incentives or penalties.0 -
No- because people are going to do what they want to do, no matter the tax.2
-
-
-
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?
Quoted for emphasis. Soda consumption, both sugary and sugar free, is down, rather substantially. We still have a rather glaring obesity problem. People eat too much and move too little. Taxing soda will not change that. And anyone who thinks the money would be used to ease insurance costs or some such thing hasn't been paying enough attention to the US government for oh the last 30 yrs or so. All sorts of taxes and money raising programs have been passed based on the promise of the funds being used for some common good. They get placed in an account that then gets regularly raided to pay for other things with a vague promise to put the money back some day.We subsidize corn with taxpayer money....which the companies use to make cheap sweeteners like corn syrup. Why would you implement a tax on something to make it more expensive when we already have a tax to make it cheaper?
This is also a great point. The reason most soft drinks switched to HFCS is because corn is cheaper than sugar cane. A big reason why corn is so cheap is government subsidies, ie tax dollars being given to farmers in exchange for them growing more corn. It's this type of myopic logic that so often bogs down the tax system and government machinations on the whole.4 -
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?
Quoted for emphasis. Soda consumption, both sugary and sugar free, is down, rather substantially. We still have a rather glaring obesity problem. People eat too much and move too little. Taxing soda will not change that. And anyone who thinks the money would be used to ease insurance costs or some such thing hasn't been paying enough attention to the US government for oh the last 30 yrs or so. All sorts of taxes and money raising programs have been passed based on the promise of the funds being used for some common good. They get placed in an account that then gets regularly raided to pay for other things with a vague promise to put the money back some day.We subsidize corn with taxpayer money....which the companies use to make cheap sweeteners like corn syrup. Why would you implement a tax on something to make it more expensive when we already have a tax to make it cheaper?
This is also a great point. The reason most soft drinks switched to HFCS is because corn is cheaper than sugar cane. A big reason why corn is so cheap is government subsidies, ie tax dollars being given to farmers in exchange for them growing more corn. It's this type of myopic logic that so often bogs down the tax system and government machinations on the whole.
Do you know if that chart includes HFCS or just sugar/sucrose? The dip seems to coincide with when high fructose corn syrup was starting to replace sugar as a sweetener.1 -
I went looking to see if sugar included HFCS. I can't be sure but it looks as though it might not. It had me curious because I think most regular soda use HFCS now. I could be wrong.
1 -
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 went looking to see if sugar included HFCS. I can't be sure but it looks as though it might not. It had me curious because I think most regular soda use HFCS now. I could be wrong.
I think you might be miscomparing those two graphs. The X-axis is a different scale, yours covers a longer period of time but ends at 2002. In the previous graph sugar goes up from the period of 1980 to 1998 and then starts to decline. In your graph total sweeteners does the same thing but refined sugar stays flat the entire time. So if anything "sugar" in the top graph refers to "total sweeteners" in the bottom graph.
As for how it looks a lot more dramatic in decline in the top graph check the y-axis, the scaling is different there. Your graph goes all the way down to the zero mark where the upper graph stops way short of zero thus making the dip look steeper.
In your graph it looks like total sweeteners decline from about 105 lb/capta to about 95 pound per capita from 1998 to 2002. In the above graph it looks like it declines from 110 lb/capita to about 100 pound per capita over that period. So the scale is slightly different but you can see the trend is the same.
So I'd argue "total sweeteners" in your graph lines up with "sugar" in the other graph well but doesn't line up to "refined sugar" at all. The reason it looks so different is that the axis scales are just really different.
Making your Y-axis not go to zero or just be really zoomed in in general is a good way to make something look really dramatic when it is not. Classic example from the news:
4 -
I can only imagine this happening in an Orwellian world. Even then, there would also need to be a tax on every single food that has higher calories per typical average consumption for it to make sense, and people would be chipped to track movement and taxed accordingly as well.3
-
I don't think it should be taxed. I also don't think WIC should be sending my 3 year old home with 64 ounces of sugary juice twice a month.0
-
Aaron_K123 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 went looking to see if sugar included HFCS. I can't be sure but it looks as though it might not. It had me curious because I think most regular soda use HFCS now. I could be wrong.
I think you might be miscomparing those two graphs. The X-axis is a different scale, yours covers a longer period of time but ends at 2002. In the previous graph sugar goes up from the period of 1980 to 1998 and then starts to decline. In your graph total sweeteners does the same thing but refined sugar stays flat the entire time. So if anything "sugar" in the top graph refers to "total sweeteners" in the bottom graph.
As for how it looks a lot more dramatic in decline in the top graph check the y-axis, the scaling is different there. Your graph goes all the way down to the zero mark where the upper graph stops way short of zero thus making the dip look steeper.
In your graph it looks like total sweeteners decline from about 105 lb/capta to about 95 pound per capita from 1998 to 2002. In the above graph it looks like it declines from 110 lb/capita to about 100 pound per capita over that period. So the scale is slightly different but you can see the trend is the same.
So I'd argue "total sweeteners" in your graph lines up with "sugar" in the other graph well but doesn't line up to "refined sugar" at all. The reason it looks so different is that the axis scales are just really different.
Making your Y-axis not go to zero or just be really zoomed in in general is a good way to make something look really dramatic when it is not. Classic example from the news:
Could well be. I was just curious what that graph of sugar entailed.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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...
+1 Big Time "what she said"!0 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »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!
Now, and I lived in Germany for several years after I graduated from University (many moons ago) and I had the chance to go to London numerous times on business so I LOVE A GOOD DEBATE, I would have to disagree with you.
I am of the mindset that it is NEVER a good idea for the govt to tax people to "control their behavior". It is not the govt business what I put in my body. Additionally, my concern is that the govt picks on "this group" one week...soon thereafter they pick on "another group" and so on. Eventually, they are going to pick on 6'0" @ 205lbs bald white guys in their early 50's who earn more than $XXX,XXX a year. Plus, those guys - and here comes my bias based on a lot of experience - are not nearly smart enough to get this stuff correct.
In my opinion, if I want to eat pork rinds all day long (have never had pork rinds, so no idea what those are...but they seem to be "not very healthy" - whatever that means) then that is my choice and my right. Eventually, there could be some consequences. This, logically, brings up another conversation (about "fat people paying more for health insurance"). And, potentially another conversation (should the govt implement the "Stupid Tax"?).
Live and let live. If you want to drink Soda and eat Pork Rinds all day long, then knock yourself out. Have at it! Just don't ask me for any money (in any form) to subsidize your consumption (no matter soda and pork rinds or steak and eggs). But that is an whole other conversation! :-)
Anyway, like I said, I love a good debate. I find it very interesting and engaging to have good honest conversation with people from different countries and with people of different mindsets (not suggesting that because you are from a different country that you have a different mind set). I have the neatest conversations in the common kitchen here at work.
I look forward to your thoughts on what I am suggesting. Don't be shy....you are not going to hurt my feelings.
1 -
LiftHeavyThings27105 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »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!
Now, and I lived in Germany for several years after I graduated from University (many moons ago) and I had the chance to go to London numerous times on business so I LOVE A GOOD DEBATE, I would have to disagree with you.
I am of the mindset that it is NEVER a good idea for the govt to tax people to "control their behavior". It is not the govt business what I put in my body. Additionally, my concern is that the govt picks on "this group" one week...soon thereafter they pick on "another group" and so on. Eventually, they are going to pick on 6'0" @ 205lbs bald white guys in their early 50's who earn more than $XXX,XXX a year. Plus, those guys - and here comes my bias based on a lot of experience - are not nearly smart enough to get this stuff correct.
In my opinion, if I want to eat pork rinds all day long (have never had pork rinds, so no idea what those are...but they seem to be "not very healthy" - whatever that means) then that is my choice and my right. Eventually, there could be some consequences. This, logically, brings up another conversation (about "fat people paying more for health insurance"). And, potentially another conversation (should the govt implement the "Stupid Tax"?).
Live and let live. If you want to drink Soda and eat Pork Rinds all day long, then knock yourself out. Have at it! Just don't ask me for any money (in any form) to subsidize your consumption (no matter soda and pork rinds or steak and eggs). But that is an whole other conversation! :-)
Anyway, like I said, I love a good debate. I find it very interesting and engaging to have good honest conversation with people from different countries and with people of different mindsets (not suggesting that because you are from a different country that you have a different mind set). I have the neatest conversations in the common kitchen here at work.
I look forward to your thoughts on what I am suggesting. Don't be shy....you are not going to hurt my feelings.
If the government is paying for health care and the *kitten* that people are putting in their bodies is contributing to health problems it approaches a situation where government has a right to step in.
You live off the grid, eat yourself to poor health, you die and the scavengers take care of your carcass no government involvement.4 -
Hmmm. Why not subsidize healthier food options instead making a new tax? If healthy food was a better less expensive option most people would gravitate towards those options. The government subsidizes crops and foodstuffs that are easily processed and practically devoid of nutrition. Junk food calories are cheap thanks to our tax dollars, so instead of adding a new tax just shift those dollars to better options and then the real cost of junk food will shine through. I know this is a pipe dream, Big Ag lobbyists will fight tooth and nail to keep the corporate welfare filling their coffers while they release some new triple the energy (sugar) power drink for those hardcore sofa gamers...0
-
Hmmm. Why not subsidize healthier food options instead making a new tax? If healthy food was a better less expensive option most people would gravitate towards those options. The government subsidizes crops and foodstuffs that are easily processed and practically devoid of nutrition. Junk food calories are cheap thanks to our tax dollars, so instead of adding a new tax just shift those dollars to better options and then the real cost of junk food will shine through. I know this is a pipe dream, Big Ag lobbyists will fight tooth and nail to keep the corporate welfare filling their coffers while they release some new triple the energy (sugar) power drink for those hardcore sofa gamers...
I don't know if I believe people would gravitate towards the least expensive options. This isn't what we see in food sales now. You can meet most of your nutritional needs with beans, rice, and vegetables and it's hard to craft a cheaper diet (assuming you're purchasing non-trendy vegetables), but is that what most people are eating?
I don't think people are buying Doritos because beans are too expensive. I think they're buying them because they enjoy the taste.7 -
Fruits and vegetables are cheaper than deliberately engineered and manufactured to be craved foods. You can buy whopping boatloads of them compared to everything in the middle aisles of the grocery store. Farmers are subsidized.
https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-33251625 -
ohh, lets tax carbs too!5
-
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