If that is how they're doing it in Seattle, then I can't imagine what the tax would be on, say, Coca Cola, given that the tax on Gatorade seems to be about 65% and coke has twice as much sugar.
By the gram is the only fair way. That makes it easy, since all food has to state how much sugar it contains.
I highly doubt that's how they''re doing it. Bureaucracy isn't about being fair.If that is how they're doing it in Seattle, then I can't imagine what the tax would be on, say, Coca Cola, given that the tax on Gatorade seems to be about 65% and coke has twice as much sugar.
This is going to be a problem at the soda fountain.
"Is that regular or diet?"
"Regular"
"That will be $2.50."
"I meant diet."
"That will be $0.97."
[QUOTE="woolfe9998, post: 39252512, member: 326181]
Why though? Those individual behaviors are resulting in the costs, so why not address it?
If that is how they're doing it in Seattle, then I can't imagine what the tax would be on, say, Coca Cola, given that the tax on Gatorade seems to be about 65% and coke has twice as much sugar.
Charge $2.50 for everything and pocket the money.Good point. Most places which sell hot food these days sell drink cups that you fill yourselves. I don't know how they can possibly address this.
But it appears Seattle is taxing ounces of liquid, so if a 12 ounce pop has as much sugar as a 65 ounce Gatorade why would the tax be higher on the gatorade?
I understand the thrust of your argument, but there is the fact that some of the behaviors with the highest social cost already are taxed, did I miss reading you being against taxing tobacco and alcohol?I think I've explained my position in prior posts responding to bshole. In summary, why not "address" any and every behavior which might indirectly cost someone else money? Because in a free society we as individuals are allowed to make choices.
I understand the thrust of your argument, but there is the fact that some of the behaviors with the highest social cost already are taxed, did I miss reading you being against taxing tobacco and alcohol?
The customer is not charged (directly), the restaurant is not charged (directly). Thus, the customer can refill a cup as many times as the customer wants without affecting the customer. Thus there is not anything to actually address in your example.Good point. Most places which sell hot food these days sell drink cups that you fill yourselves. I don't know how they can possibly address this.
The tax is not proportional to how much sugar is in the drink. The drink either has 40+ calories per 12 oz (taxed) or it does not (not taxed).If that is how they're doing it in Seattle, then I can't imagine what the tax would be on, say, Coca Cola, given that the tax on Gatorade seems to be about 65% and coke has twice as much sugar.
Added sugar is pretty easy to show as not being healthy. In no way do you need added sugars (you might want it, but you don't need it). There is clear research as to harm produced to society by these added sugars. On average diabetes costs about $8000/year/person with it.i am waiting for the salt tax..........................
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
The tax is outrageously excessive. But I wonder if you might not be fully buying into the evidence that consumption of refined sugar is leading to very serious and costly consequences, by some measures, it could be among the deadliest habits there is moving forward, now that smoking is fading out.You might have missed me saying that I could tolerate taxing alcohol and tobacco so long as it isn't a slippery slope. This has been the problem I've had with those taxes, that it worried me they would move on to other things, which is what they're doing now.
Also, the amount of the tax matters. In New York, they tax cigarettes so heavily that no one who isn't affluent can afford them. This has resulted in an illegal cigarette trade which has caused multiple deaths and incarcerations. Taxation is a soft form of prohibition, which becomes less and less "soft" as the tax increases. Look at that sugar tax they have in Seattle, 65% on Gatorade? Give me a break. Not only can these do-gooders not be trusted to keep to certain specific things, but they can't restrain themselves from going way overboard like this.
Perhaps if the poor drank less crap they would be a) less poor and 2) feel better. It's a win, win.This will end up being a regressive tax on the poor. Seattle doesn't care about poor people?
I'm not in favor of government trying to control the behavior of the individuals in this manner.
Taxes on cigarettes don't reduce smoking in heavy smokers. But it significantly reduces people from becoming heavy smokers in the first place (especially youth and those who are poor). Fewer people start smoking with higher cigarette taxes and fewer light smokers become heavy smokers.Taxes on cigarettes don't reduce smoking and taxes on liquor don't reduce drinking. Taxes on sugar won't reduce sugar usage either.
The customer is not charged (directly), the restaurant is not charged (directly). Thus, the customer can refill a cup as many times as the customer wants without affecting the customer. Thus there is not anything to actually address in your example.
It is the distributor to the restaurant that is taxed. Thus, the distributor will most likely charge the restaurant more. The restaurant can choose to pass on this price increase or not to the customer. As Seattle customers are probably already paying about 7 cents per ounce in a restaurant, another 1 to 1.75 cents is not a deal breaker. It'll be noticed, but the increase isn't huge in dollar terms.
The tax is not proportional to how much sugar is in the drink. The drink either has 40+ calories per 12 oz (taxed) or it does not (not taxed).
The tax is outrageously excessive. But I wonder if you might not be fully buying into the evidence that consumption of refined sugar is leading to very serious and costly consequences, by some measures, it could be among the deadliest habits there is moving forward, now that smoking is fading out.
I agree that it should be about the added sugar content and not have an arbitrary limit. But it is a political solution. Politics tend to be about arbitrary thresholds. This bill seems to be riddled with exceptions. If it is from a small company (not Pepsi), then the tax is reduced. If it contains alcohol, then there is no tax. If milk is a primary ingredient then no tax (such as chocolate milk). Etc. I really dislike bills with arbitrary exceptions.But it's taxed the same if it has 40 as it would be at 160 (Coca Cola), right? Seems like it should be about the sugar content, not some arbitrary threshold.