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

[IronWing]

So if I sell spiked chocolate milk can I get a tax credit? Nestle Quiker here I come!

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

In theory, alcohol, because it's already taxed as an alcoholic beverage, chocolate milk, because the milk part is healthy, small business, because we don't want to kill jobs by putting them out of business. That, and the milk industry, alcohol industry, and small business association lobbied heavily. If the exceptions seems arbitrary, look at who is making campaign contributions. That's the part I don't like.

 

[mect]

I wonder if a more effective method for encouraging healthy habits would be food vouchers for things like vegetables similar to WIC. I think a big part of the reason people eat/drink crap is because it is so cheap.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

I just don't understand how you draw the line at Sweetened beverages and not expand this to everything unhealthy -

Does this include caramel white mocha's with half & half and whipped cream at SBUX? Cheetos? Taco Bell? Deep fried blooming onions served with 8-ounces of ranch? Movie theater popcorn with hydrogenated butter oil?

Having a Coke isn't the worst thing life.

It's a regressive tax, they should be abolished across all products including alcohol & tobacco. Institute a national sales tax if you must but fleecing poor people with Scratchers & $8/pack cigarettes isn't helping anyone.

 

[UglyCasanova]

To be honest I don't think so. People that have bad dietary habits will continue to have them even if they have access to healthier alternatives.

 

[zinfamous]

make it $1 per oz.

 

[Cozarkian]

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.

I already edited my post to touch on this issue, but fundamentally they are different. My consumption of sugar increases my risk of diabetes, but it does not increase your risk of diabetes, so that is not a true public cost. In contrast, my driving drunk does increase risk to others, as does littering with cigarettes. Accordingly, the cost of sugar consumption should be borne by those who over consume it through higher medical bills and insurance premiums.

The problem becomes when the government is subsidizing those bills and premiums, which effectively transfers a private cost to the government as a result of government policy, whereas the public costs from alcohol and tobacco are the result of private action rather than policy.

It might make sense for government to use a sugar tax (since it can't really charge higher premiums to Medicare recipients who consume excess sugar), but that is a different rationale than for alcohol and cigarette taxes.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Right, this tax makes sense imo. The city is having to pay expenses as a result of sugar overconsumption (doesn’t matter if you look at it on an individual basis or collectively) so recoupe those costs by taxing the thing driving it - sugar. Granted there is added sugar in everything and this hurts the beverage industry only but I’d say they have a disproportionate effect anyways. I have no idea if the amount is too much or too little because I don’t know the effects on buying behavior or how much the city spends on diabetes. If the revenue goes towards anything other than recouping medical costs though (which I’m sure it will) then that makes no sense.

 

[bbhaag]

I love it when big cities try an institute taxes like this. I love it even more when they fall flat on their faces and rescind what they know is an absurd tax that is just a thinly veiled attempt to cover over spending. Seattle should take note of what happened in Chicago and Philadelphia.

 

[pmv]

But...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d2ca728e67c_story.html?utm_term=.9b5b3bb41850

I know its different parts of government involved, and its a mess, but there seems something a bit mad to me, about a situation where sugar is subsidised at the production end, and then taxed at the consumption end. I suppose ideally they could arrange for a national sugar tax set at exactly the level to provide the funds for the subsidies to the sugar barons?

 

[pmv]

I already edited my post to touch on this issue, but fundamentally they are different. My consumption of sugar increases my risk of diabetes, but it does not increase your risk of diabetes, so that is not a true public cost. In contrast, my driving drunk does increase risk to others, as does littering with cigarettes. Accordingly, the cost of sugar consumption should be borne by those who over consume it through higher medical bills and insurance premiums.

The problem becomes when the government is subsidizing those bills and premiums, which effectively transfers a private cost to the government as a result of government policy, whereas the public costs from alcohol and tobacco are the result of private action rather than policy.

It might make sense for government to use a sugar tax (since it can't really charge higher premiums to Medicare recipients who consume excess sugar), but that is a different rationale than for alcohol and cigarette taxes.

Though I suggest the problem with driving drunk is not the being drunk but the driving. Maybe more of the tax should be on driving rather than on drinking, as that kills plenty of third-parties even when alcohol is not involved? Though drinking does contribute to public disorder, I suppose, which also imposes a cost on others.

I don't really know about sugar tax. It might not affect consumption and just become a regressive way to raise revenue. But it might be worthwhile doing as a controlled experiment to see what effect it has.

 

[bbhaag]

Ehhh....you really wanna bring Ag subsidies into this? That's like on a whole other level. It's honestly a debate that could use its own thread. Ag subs are like a rabbit hole that has no end. It just keeps going on and on.

 

[darkswordsman17]

As someone that enjoys a healthy enjoyment of sweetened goods (both liquid and not), I like the idea but don't like the implementation. Should be by the gram and should apply to basically all products.

Another big problem is it doesn't address diet drinks, which don't seem to be any healthier.

Sugar addiction will also need to be addressed. Although the image of sugarheads snorting it does make for comical situation, feel like some people might really be that bad.

make it $1 per oz.

I say $0.01 per gram to start with. That's still a hefty tax and will get products that marginally need sugar to step down I'm sure. Maybe make it staged (just don't let it be gamed with screwing with serving sizes or something so that companies start selling a bunch of thimble sized bottles of soft drinks or something), so that the more sugar it has the worse the tax. And make it higher for foods intended for children.

Offer exemptions for actual fruit (as long as it isn't from concentrate or other forms where sugar is added) and some other much healthier forms of natural sugars. Which people could still load up on sugar that way, but they'll still be much healthier (and the cost of trying to jack sugar up by adding fruit won't help costs much, so I don't see companies rushing to try and do that, although possibly they would, which could cause prices of fruits to skyrocket which won't be good, so maybe partial tax when used in processed foods).

I do worry that we'll see them start using artificial sugars and/or using other chemicals/flavorings to replace the sweetness, which will cause issues on their own I'm sure.

I wish I could play around with different sugar amounts and see how much reduction I could handle. I'd bet they could probably drop 10g in a can of pop and it be hardly noticeable.

But...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d2ca728e67c_story.html?utm_term=.9b5b3bb41850

I know its different parts of government involved, and its a mess, but there seems something a bit mad to me, about a situation where sugar is subsidised at the production end, and then taxed at the consumption end. I suppose ideally they could arrange for a national sugar tax set at exactly the level to provide the funds for the subsidies to the sugar barons?

Absolutely that needs to be addressed, but I think just taxing the sugar used in processed foods (and making sure its not gamed like suddenly you can buy sugar "not intended for consumption" or some junk like that, and then they sell unsweetened foods but include packets of sugar as a desiccant or something; which hell, if you still taxed it, would probably still be effective and people would get a better idea of how much sugar they consume).

 

[Mai72]

IMO, sugar is going to be treated like tobacco in 30 years. Look at the projected future of diabities. 1-3 Americans will have type 2 diabities by 2050. That's a lot of people who are going to be seeking treatment. We already know that sugar is addictive and destroys the body in large amounts. The average American consumes pounds of this stuff every year.

Am I for the tax? Yes.

 

[ch33zw1z]

tax junk food to hell and back. our country has serious health issues.

 

[Starbuck1975]

A frappuccino or cafe mocha has as much if not more added sugars than a can of soda.

Levy the tax against sugar laden luxury coffee beverages and watch the citizens of Seattle lose their minds in a pumpkin spice deprived frenzy.

 

[Exterous]

It would be interesting to see some numbers out of Chicago or Philly but I'm guessing this will be a pretty regressive tax considering poor and/or non-white groups tend to be the highest consumers of soda. Chicago and Philly areas saw some pretty big jumps in revenue just over the county lines meaning those with the means to hop in a car and drive to save money would and those without the means or time (poor and working poor) can't.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/163997/regular-soda-popular-young-nonwhite-low-income.aspx?ref=image

I also saw some article comments about people complaining about increased traffic congestion and fender benders by their house\local grocery just over county lines. No idea how valid that is but a potential unintended cost associated with too local or high of a tax

 

[UglyCasanova]

Can’t help but laugh at the idea of someone willing to drive to another county to buy soda.

 

[blankslate]

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

Gatorade is also not loaded with HFCS unlike a competitor of theirs... Sodas moved from sugar as a primary sweetener to High Fructose Corn Syrup a while ago perhaps long enough ago to correspond with a rise in obesity? I'll have to look into it.

I'm not saying sugar is harmless at all but I have felt noticeably worse for wear after drinking sodas with HFCS compared to drinking ones with sugar. I stay away from anything that I can tell has HFCS which leads to time lost reading ingredients lists and try to cut down on sugar by diluting my Juices with water and putting less sugar in coffee and the like.

As Jaskalas said this is a piecemeal solution... but one party equates going further with rank socialism.


____________

 

[bbhaag]

Can’t help but laugh at the idea of someone willing to drive to another county to buy soda.

People will do pretty much anything to avoid paying taxes even if it means driving fifteen minutes out of their way to buy groceries. If you're going out of your way to avoid the tax you buy all your other food outside the county to.
Unless you're poor then you just suck it up and pay the tax.

 

[vi edit]

I already edited my post to touch on this issue, but fundamentally they are different. My consumption of sugar increases my risk of diabetes, but it does not increase your risk of diabetes, so that is not a true public cost. In contrast, my driving drunk does increase risk to others, as does littering with cigarettes. Accordingly, the cost of sugar consumption should be borne by those who over consume it through higher medical bills and insurance premiums.

The thing is, other peoples health choices DO increase costs to others. The entire concept of insurance is that it's a risk pool that everyone pays into. A single person will *NEVER* be able to be fully charged for their true health costs or increased expenses due to their health. That risk is spread out and paid for by everyone in the pool. As pools get more and more unhealthy, their claims grow larger and more frequent. In turn plan administrators have to raise premiums for everyone in the pool to keep it funded.

Go look at the general health of people on medicaid. They are *NOT* a healthy group of people. We all pay for that through taxes. And as their health care costs go up, so does the funding to pay for it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Can’t help but laugh at the idea of someone willing to drive to another county to buy soda.

Vice taxes (soda, tobacco, alcohol) disproportionally hit the working poor, so such "progressive taxes" for all intents purposes steal from the poor to help the poor??? I know quite a few people who cross state lines to avoid local sales tax and stockpile the important things like beer and cigarettes.

I would prefer progressive cities like Seattle aggressively tax the vices of the upper 10%.

 

[IronWing]

Compassion of Convenience™

 

[UglyCasanova]

Vice taxes (soda, tobacco, alcohol) disproportionally hit the working poor, so such "progressive taxes" for all intents purposes steal from the poor to help the poor??? I know quite a few people who cross state lines to avoid local sales tax and stockpile the important things like beer and cigarettes.

I would prefer progressive cities like Seattle aggressively tax the vices of the upper 10%.

Soda steals from the poor through shortened lifespans, poor health, and very expensive chronic diseases. The upper 10% aren’t the ones downing several Coke's a day, why put the burden on them to pay for it?

 

[Zorba]

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.

How do you feel about marketing bans? I think this is probably one of the leading factors that helped reduce smoking, because it was no longer cool. At the same time we banned smoking ads, we've loosened rules on alcohol advertising and use of alcohol has gone up.

I agree with you that I don't like sin taxes, but I also don't like that companies can distort perceptions so much with marketing. Not to mention companies like Coke and Kelloggs run campaigns actively down playing the role of nutrition in being healthy.