Soda Tax

A recent Business Week article discusses "A Tobacco-Style Tax on Fattening Drinks." I'm for it.

Let's bypass the libertarianesque arguments about taxes for right now (I'll save that bigger picture for my political blog, but in fairness, here's an argument against a soda tax) and assume it's a legit way for governments to act. The government uses taxes to create incentives/disincentives to do things. All. The. Time. It's the way things get done. Want to encourage creation of nonprofit entities? tax breaks. want to tie health care to employment? allow use of pretax dollars. i'm not a tax wiz, but you get the point.

Public health issues are hard to deal with. Unhealthy behaviors are very hard for the government to control, yet we deal with the consequences ...not surprisingly, tax money is one of the ways. But the bigger picture is that unhealthy choices translates to an unhealthy population. And when a person is unhealthy, it's harder to do things that life calls for & they enjoy (pay bills, vote, pay attention to job & school & family). It takes a toll on an individual and on a society. But what is a government to do? We've got this little thing called a "Bill of Rights..." and a capitalist society.


"Opponents say such a tax would disproportionately fall on the poor, punish thin people who merely happen to like soda and candy, and fail to address the many complex factors that contribute to obesity."



Okay, let's knock that shit down.

1. (1) That the poor would be disproportionately affected is a distraction because soda is not a necessity. This is the emotional argument. Further, it acknowledges the larger public health concern that healthy food is F*ing expensive and harder to get than bad-for-you food, and so makes me think we'd better address this. Also, if you want to talk in money and proportional representation, go back to the paragraph above about the use of tax dollars to "fix" what bad health choices bring, such as obesity-related diseases. the poor that are more likely to drink soda and smoke cigarettes are also more likely to use your tax dollars when they are sick. I'd really like to know who this "opponent" is that would make such an argument. It doesn't really benefit an advocate for the poor, who would probably have more important things to advocate for. Who else would be opposed to such a tax, I wonder?
2. (2) That the "thin" who "merely like soda" are punished is laughable--first, this is not punishment, it's prevention. Second, it's like saying those who "merely like cigarettes" but don't have heart disease or cancer (yet) are being punished with cigarette taxes, while those that are sick and pay the tax deserve it. thin does not necessarily equal healthy or invincible. argument fail.
3. (3) of course the tax does not "address the many complex factors that contribute to obesity." It addresses one. that's a pretty good start.

Apparently the tax would not include diet sodas, which is a bizarre and artificial distinction. (get it?). (Raises the spectre of the menthol exception in the recent cigarette bill.) Diet sodas are even worse than regular sodas. Artificial sweeteners make people more fat by messing with the way a body counts calories and leading to overconsumption!! Read about it here and here, for a start. (And of course, there are those that believe aspartame, a.k.a. nutrasweet, is much less healthy than the FDA and manufacturers would have you believe... that discussion is for another day).

I think the article author is correct in saying it's only a matter of time...