What’s your opinion on Seattle’s sugar tax?

[UglyCasanova]

http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/08/seattle-soda-tax-sees-massive-increases


1.75 cents per oz adds up. Honestly I think it makes sense, but I think it is way too high. Hopefully the money goes to diabetes research or the costs the city incurs from related medical expenses.


Details: https://www.seattle.gov/business-license-tax/other-seattle-taxes/sweetened-beverage-tax

Gotta love the responses from the officials too :

"The tax is collected on the final distribution of sweetened beverages by a distributor. The tax is not collected by the retailer nor is the tax burden intended to fall onto the consumer." --Seattle's response to complaints about the sudden increase in prices for sugary drinks

 

[fleshconsumed]

Objectively speaking this is no different than any other sin tax on products such as alcohol and tobacco.

Subjectively, I occasionally indulge myself with an occasional soda about once a week, so if I lived in Seattle I'd have to pay additional $0.21-0.28 per bottle. That seems steep, but overall might be a good thing if it reduces sugary drink consumption.

Meh...

 

[UglyCasanova]

I agree.

 

[Thebobo]

Going to be a pita for diet drinks or they just tax them all? Seems a pita for the distributors as well

 

[Cozarkian]

Objectively speaking this is no different than any other sin tax on products such as alcohol and tobacco.

Objectively speaking it is different. Alcohol imposes additional costs on society because it necessitates employing additional cops to monitor traffic for drunk drivers.

Cigarettes impose additional costs in the form of extra cleaning services because littering is so common, and extra fire fighting services from negligently started fires.

Since he problems from sugar are only self-inflicted health issues, it would be ideal to have the costs of sugar consumption addressed their health care insurance and costs. Practically, however, especially since health Care is government subsidized in some cases, a sugar tax might be justifiable as more effective.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm not in favor of government trying to control the behavior of the individuals in this manner. A useful function for government regulations in this area is to require manufacturers to put nutrition information on their food so that people can make informed choices. Warning labels are fine too.

I think regulating a corporation by telling it not to dump toxic waste, for example, is a legitimate role of government. I'd rather see them empower individuals to make their own choices, however, instead of trying to coerce them to make the right ones.

 

[vi edit]

Objectively speaking it is different. Alcohol imposes additional costs on society because it necessitates employing additional cops to monitor traffic for drunk drivers.

Cigarettes impose additional costs in the form of extra cleaning services because littering is so common, and extra fire fighting services from negligently started fires.

You realize that healthcare cost the US 2.5 TRILLION of which obesity is one of the largest contributing factors. Yes, poor diet does have a cost.

 

[bshole]

Objectively speaking it is different. Alcohol imposes additional costs on society because it necessitates employing additional cops to monitor traffic for drunk drivers.

Cigarettes impose additional costs in the form of extra cleaning services because littering is so common, and extra fire fighting services from negligently started fires.

And the cost of diabetes to society is 322 billion dollars. That is not chump change.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-ba...iabetes.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

 

[EduCat]

They did it here in Chicago that shit lasted two months.

 

[bshole]

I'm not in favor of government trying to control the behavior of the individuals in this manner. A useful function for government regulations in this area is to require manufacturers to put nutrition information on their food so that people can make informed choices. Warning labels are fine too.

I think regulating a corporation by telling it not to dump toxic waste, for example, is a legitimate role of government. I'd rather see them empower individuals to make their own choices, however, instead of trying to coerce them to make the right ones.

But you are in favor of the government paying for their healthcare when their lifestyle results in expensive medical conditions? I disagree. People who live unhealthy lifestyles should be prepaying for their future health care via a sin tax. The caveat being that the sin tax should be used exclusively for healthcare and nothing else.

 

[vi edit]

As for my opinion...meh. This just drives more and more companies to pushing for artificial sweetners which I don't know if that is any better. Or they will sell some sort of separate "flavor" booster that you can mix back in that is loaded with sugar.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Gotta love the responses from the officials too :

"The tax is collected on the final distribution of sweetened beverages by a distributor. The tax is not collected by the retailer nor is the tax burden intended to fall onto the consumer." --Seattle's response to complaints about the sudden increase in prices for sugary drinks

But of course everyone knows that the tax fairy will come in the middle of the night and pay it so the consumer doesn't need to worry about it. Like usual it will be passed along, probably in a reduction in product size so the price doesn't change at the retail level.

 

[mdram]

i am waiting for the salt tax..........................

 

[Jaskalas]

Piecemeal efforts to fund healthcare are pathetic, but more importantly: ineffectual. Personal income in the United States is $15.5 trillion. If healthcare costs $2.5 trillion, that's $13 trillion leftover. Tax it and consider it fully funded. But a soda tax? That'll just piss me off, and won't reduce my health costs one cent.

 

[MavericK96]

Going to be a pita for diet drinks or they just tax them all? Seems a pita for the distributors as well

Based on the photos it appears only non-diet is affected.

I honestly don't drink much non-diet soda so this doesn't really bother me. I wonder if this applies to stuff like sweet tea as well, though?

 

[Puffnstuff]

i am waiting for the salt tax..........................

Now if we only had a bullsh*tters tax then I'd be onboard all the way. Can't tell the truth....blammo pay up.

 

[lxskllr]

But you are in favor of the government paying for their healthcare when their lifestyle results in expensive medical conditions? I disagree. People who live unhealthy lifestyles should be prepaying for their future health care via a sin tax. The caveat being that the sin tax should be used exclusively for healthcare and nothing else.

Like blown out knees from running, and shoulder dislocations from whitewater paddling? Tax shoes, boats, and neoprene!

I'm nominally for the tax cause everyone deserves some misery. People are ok with taxing my shit, but it's a big problem when the money comes out of their pockets. Well, fuck you. You can pay up also. If I were running things, I'd get rid of all "sin" taxes, though I could possibly be persuaded to levy a luxury tax of no more than average sales tax on some items. IOW, if the US average sales tax is 8%, another 8% on top isn't necessarily out of line. All that depends on what kind of money needs to be made up after cutting frivolous expenses of course.

 

[woolfe9998]

But you are in favor of the government paying for their healthcare when their lifestyle results in expensive medical conditions? I disagree. People who live unhealthy lifestyles should be prepaying for their future health care via a sin tax. The caveat being that the sin tax should be used exclusively for healthcare and nothing else.

Yes. There's always a downside to permitting freedom of choice for the individual. I'm legitimately concerned about a slippery slope here. It started with alcohol, then cigarettes, now we're moving on to sugar. By the same logic, there should be a fat tax and a carb tax. If they had left it at alcohol and tobacco, I probably wouldn't squawk. I just have a different feeling about the government trying to control people's personal decisions about health, sex, drugs etc. than I do about government imposing regulations on the economy and the environment. The fact that risks are socialized through taxation and benefits programs cannot be used as an excuse for authoritarian government control of our personal choices. If we're going to have government subsidize healthcare with taxpayer money, then we have to accept the fact that not everyone is going to behave exactly the way we want them to.

 

[bshole]

Yes. There's always a downside to permitting freedom of choice for the individual. I'm legitimately concerned about a slippery slope here. It started with alcohol, then cigarettes, now we're moving on to sugar. By the same logic, there should be a fat tax and a carb tax. If they had left it at alcohol and tobacco, I probably wouldn't squawk. I just have a different feeling about the government trying to control people's personal decisions about health, sex, drugs etc. than I do about government imposing regulations on the economy and the environment. The fact that risks are socialized through taxation and benefits programs cannot be used as an excuse for authoritarian government control of our personal choices. If we're going to have government subsidize healthcare with taxpayer money, then we have to accept the fact that not everyone is going to behave exactly the way we want them to.

My point is that people whose behavior puts them at risk for hideously expensive medical problems should pay more than those of us who live a healthy lifestyle. The true cost to society of that garbage they are eating should be reflected in its price. The government isn't controlling what you eat, it is just adjusting the price to reflect the real cost of that food.

The best way to handle this is nationalize health care. Make it requirement that everybody has a physical once a year. From that exam, the health care tax for the person would be adjusted based on alcohol/drug/tobacco use, pounds overweight, diet and exercise. What we want is more vegetables, less meat, less sugar, less starches, etc... If your lifestyle is guaranteed to give you a million plus dollar health care problem in the future, your tax will reflect it.

 

[woolfe9998]

My point is that people whose behavior puts them at risk for hideously expensive medical problems should pay more than those of us who live a healthy lifestyle. The true cost to society of that garbage they are eating should be reflected in its price. The government isn't controlling what you eat, it is just adjusting the price to reflect the real cost of that food.

The best way to handle this is nationalize health care. Make it requirement that everybody has a physical once a year. From that exam, the health care tax for the person would be adjusted based on alcohol/drug/tobacco use, pounds overweight, diet and exercise. What we want is more vegetables, less meat, less sugar, less starches, etc...

I want to nationalize health insurance. I don't agree with these attempts to control individual behavior.

Look at social welfare programs like food stamps by analogy. The left's view of welfare recipients is that they are all honest, hard working people who fell through the cracks, while the right thinks they're all a bunch of lazy drug addicted fools living off the largess of others. The real truth of course, is that there's quite obviously some of both among the population of people who receive social welfare benefits. As liberals, we tolerate the fact that at least some of the people receiving the taxes we pay as benefits are not really deserving of it. Yet when it comes to eating too much sugar, that's where we want to draw the line?

One of the most common arguments made by libertarians and conservatives about having a national healthcare system is that it will be used as an excuse for the government to intrude into our lives and control our decisions because the argument is now that each individual's choice affects everyone else. It's the argument you just made here.

There's plenty of data to suggest that education campaigns and warning labels are effective. Smoking has been cut in half over the past 40 years, and that is mostly down to education. That is the proper role of government, to empower the individual to make an informed choice.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Based on the photos it appears only non-diet is affected.

I honestly don't drink much non-diet soda so this doesn't really bother me. I wonder if this applies to stuff like sweet tea as well, though?

I'm not sure what category Gatorade would fall under. It's not a diet soda but not exactly a Pepsi either.

 

[UglyCasanova]

There's plenty of data to suggest that education campaigns and warning labels are effective. Smoking has been cut in half over the past 40 years, and that is mostly down to education. That is the proper role of government, to empower the individual to make an informed choice.

If you want people to use less of something you make it more expensive. I don't think any amount of labeling is going to dissuade to any appreciable degree anyone from drinking their sodas, they are already known to be bad for you but people want what they want. Which is fine, but there are external costs associated with drinking sodas.

And I agree with you that I want government out of our lives. I disagree with the idea of promoting national healthcare but being against cost control measures though.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm not sure what category Gatorade would fall under. It's not a diet soda but not exactly a Pepsi either.

I used to drink lots of Gatorade. It has about half the calories and sugar as non-diet soda. Seems like the tax should be half per unit of volume. I don't know how their tax works there. Seems really steep.

 

[woolfe9998]

If you want people to use less of something you make it more expensive. I don't think any amount of labeling is going to dissuade to any appreciable degree anyone from drinking their sodas, they are already known to be bad for you but people want what they want. Which is fine, but there are external costs associated with drinking sodas.

Another way of putting it, education and labeling are already as effective as possible. Those who persist won't be swayed by such things. In my view, once all the information is out there, it becomes a matter of personal choice.

And I agree with you that I want government out of our lives. I disagree with the idea of promoting national healthcare but being against cost control measures though.

I'm in favor of cost control measures, just not by trying to control individual behavior. Nationalized healthcare is cheaper in Canada principally because they cap doctors salaries, drug prices, medical equipment prices, and save on paper work compared to our system

 

[lxskllr]

I used to drink lots of Gatorade. It has about half the calories and sugar as non-diet soda. Seems like the tax should be half per unit of volume. I don't know how their tax works there. Seems really steep.

By the gram is the only fair way. That makes it easy, since all food has to state how much sugar it contains.