The Plan To Tax Soda Products — Good Or Bad?
I suspect that many of us would place a lot of the blame for today’s obesity epidemic on soda products. There is little doubt that they account for a large share of the “empty calories” each of us may consume in a given day. I know — I like them. At one time, I drank two or three 12-ounce cans of soda each day. Usually RC, but I didn’t really discriminate. Coke or Pepsi were fair game as well. A few years ago, I read that sodas have actually replaced coffee as the most common morning drink among Americans. At that time, I fully understood the sentiment. I couldn’t stand coffee.
As concern over the obesity epidemic continues to grow, and local and state government coffers get pinched, we’re starting to see a greater number of schemes being developed to address both problems. The most recent comes from New York State, which is looking at a $15 billion deficit. Their plan is to add a tax of $0.15 per beverage on sugar-containing soda products. Now, I didn’t see what’s considered a serving, but however you slice it, that would add up pretty quickly. I guess the tax doesn’t apply to diet soda.
Right or wrong, I think we’re going to start seeing more of the so-called “fat tax” plans getting pushed through the system. There’s little doubt that the rising obesity rate adds substantial cost to the healthcare system, at a time when the options to pay for those costs are rapidly dwindling. So what do you think about this plan? Should our government legislate people’s behavior? The same premise has been applied to cigarettes, and has probably contributed to the reduction in smoking in our society. Should the government get even further into our lives by regulating behavior through taxes? If its O.K. to tax sodas because of their contribution to obesity, what else is O.K.?
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!3 Responses to “The Plan To Tax Soda Products — Good Or Bad?”
Comments
Read below or add a comment...


My two cents:
* Soft drink companies are heavily subsidized through their use of HFCS as their main ingredient. So what we have here is one level of government taxing a product and another level of government subsidizing it….SMART
* Soft drinks are cheap! If a 2 liter bottle of Coke costs $2.00, the new “fat tax” will add 30 cents to the bill. 30 cents!!! Who can’t come up with another 30 cents? Do they really think that this extra expense is going to cause obese New Yorkers to forgo their purchase of a vanilla Coke? Hmmm, let’s see, buy that bottle of Pepsi or pay the rent. What to do, what to do…
This tax is designed to bring more money into the state’s near empty coffers.
Period.
It is not going to entice anyone to drink less pop.
It will however, make it easier to add new taxes or even slap bans on other forms of junk food.
It’s an interesting debate – where does government step in to use a “tax” to reduce consumption of a product that may be considered unhealthy versus looking at trying to change the fundamental behavior that leads to the problem in the first place?
My brother and I had a discussion about this one time. I would contend that one of the government’s best tool for modifying people’s behavior is the tax system. That’s one reason home ownership is so high in our country. Take Canada or Europe. Citizen’s in those countries don’t get a tax break for home ownership, and the rate of home ownership is much lower…