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

[SunnyNW]

I don't believe this has been brought up (to be honest I did skim through the thread very quickly) but I'm pretty sure a similar tax was passed about 10 years ago or so... in the Seattle area.

I remember there being a sugar tax but at that time candy was also taxed along with soda.

If I remember correctly it lasted like 2 months.

Edit: I googled a bit and found that it was sales tax that was added to candy, gum, bottled water and beer in 2010. So kind of similar but definitely not has heavy on the wallet. It did only last a few months though.

 

[Meghan54]

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

Sucks to be in Seattle if you like sodas?

 

[Exterous]

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

Laugh or not it seems fairly prevalent in Chicago so I would imagine a localized tax would not do much to improve health

Costco’s nine Cook County locations saw a 34 percent decline in sales of beverages affected by the tax, said John McKay, chief operating officer of Costco’s northern division.

The chain saw a corresponding increase of 38 percent in sales of sweetened beverages in its nine stores just outside Cook County

 

[Cozarkian]

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.

That's true, but again, it is an indirect effect from poor policies and the way health insurance is managed (they could like life insurance, charge higher premiums to overweight individuals), rather than an effect caused directly by the private action - so it is in fact different than alcohol and cigarette taxes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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/

If you want to deal with diabetes you are going to need a tax on most carbohydrates, a tax on cubicles, one on businesses for creating stress and not allowing sufficient breaks, and some other things. All of those things are involved in diabetes, heart disease and more. The societal structure we insane Americans see as normal are more likely to be why we are in poor health overall, not insurance issues. We live to kill ourselves and think that we're going to fix that without addressing the fundamental issues, and those are not resolved by a sugar tax.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

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.

How many pointless sports injuries costs us exorbitant amounts every year? Why should I pay to fix the knees of some lunatic who runs a marathon every month?! Or a crazy person base-jumping of buildings? What about the kids with brain damage from football, that must cost millions just for one person! Or what about someone who's not very fat, but too sedentary?

So the solution is clearly a "sports tax" on running shoes, tennis rackets, football gear etc, and also extra tax on sofas. Probably needs to scale with how comfortable they are, hard wooden pews are exempted.. And perhaps a netflix tax dedicated to medical expenses? Maybe longer shows needs to lead to an increased tax rate?

Do you know how many people are injured every year by power tools? Those bastards clog up emergency rooms! I propose a "drill and saw tax" of 14.3673%

Gee, I wonder why the tax code is so complicated..?

 

[piasabird]

Seems like you cant tax sugar. It is in sausage, barbecue sauce, used as a marinade to soften meat, is in all manner of ice cream and other things. Sugar or its other forms like Molasses, Fructose, etc is found in so many ingredients and dishes. Take spaghetti sauce and ketchup; both of which have sugar in it. Look at salad dressing and that is full of sugar also. Taxing just soda is asinine.

Tax whip cream and sugar filled coffee and tea drinks also. Then there are energy drinks and bars and fruit in cans with heavy and light syrup and dont even bother looking a fruit juice which is mostly water and sugar.

 

[Jaskalas]

Meanwhile....

 

[crashtech]

No, I'm fine with what the research says, though being overweight and not exercising are more serious risks than sugar consumption per se. Still, sugar consumption in and of itself, past about 10% of your total calorie intake, is a serious risk for heart disease, among other things.

None of which changes my position on any of this. Subjecting myself to a health risk is my choice and I don't want the government using taxation to coerce me to make the choice it wants me to make.

I actually agree with you, but the problem is that as we move towards more taxpayer funded healthcare, unhealthy individual decisions will have ever greater negative consequences for others in the form of higher taxes. Once single payer becomes a reality, the government will certainly assert the right to incentivize what it considers healthy behavior, and/or punish unhealthy behavior. This is a natural consequence of us collectively wanting the government to assume responsibility for our care. This Seattle tax is just a foreshadowing of things to come. Note that I'm not necessarily making a value judgment, just anticipating likely consequences as I see them.

 

[pmv]

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.

Actually I do think its a significant point, insofar as people are objecting that 'the state shouldn't be interfering in people's choices'. The state is _already_ interfering, by subsidising production (on a pretty substantial scale, in the case of sugar, it's a particularly ridiculous subsidy when you consider the details, I'd say its worse than many other agricultural subsidies...and the EU does similar things )

Ergo a general argument against state interference in 'the market' and people's choices has to address the fact that it's already happening. If you are against such state meddling, you should probably start by putting your efforts into ending such subsidies, rather than objecting to the relatively minor case of consumption taxes.

 

[pmv]

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.

The big thing about smoking, that most bothers me, is that the stats show that most smokers start the habit below the legal age at which they should be allowed to. Not many people take it up after the age of 18. And because it's pretty-much an addiction, in effect the tobacco companies are dependent on minors (was going to say 'children', but its probably a bit tricksy to call 16 year-olds 'children') taking up smoking to maintain their customer base, and they damn well know it.

While it might be hard to know how to deal with that in law, that just doesn't seem right to me, and it's why I can't see being an executive of a tobacco company as a respectable occupation. Your livelihood is dependent on pushing addictive substances to those too young to make an intelligent choice.

Though it's not possible to say the same about sugar, given that it occurs naturally in so many foods. But advertising sweets (er, I mean 'candy') to kids does seem a questionable thing.

 

[UglyCasanova]

The big thing about smoking, that most bothers me, is that the stats show that most smokers start the habit below the legal age at which they should be allowed to. Not many people take it up after the age of 18. And because it's pretty-much an addiction, in effect the tobacco companies are dependent on minors (was going to say 'children', but its probably a bit tricksy to call 16 year-olds 'children') taking up smoking to maintain their customer base, and they damn well know it.

While it might be hard to know how to deal with that in law, that just doesn't seem right to me, and it's why I can't see being an executive of a tobacco company as a respectable occupation. Your livelihood is dependent on pushing addictive substances to those too young to make an intelligent choice.

Though it's not possible to say the same about sugar, given that it occurs naturally in so many foods. But advertising sweets (er, I mean 'candy') to kids does seem a questionable thing.

Sugar is an addictive substance being pushed onto people too young to make an intelligent decision as well, I don’t see any difference?

 

[vi edit]

As a parent, I'm disgusted by the sheer amount of sugar/candy that kids are showered with. I'm throwing away literal buckets of it multiple times a year. Between Easter, Halloween, Christmas and who knows what other celebrations in between my kids are bringing home candy by the fistful. I come across as a candy nazi in my house since I moderate their access to it so much. But their palates have become so conditioned to sugar laden shit the types of food they will actually eat is atrocious. Their diet has become so terrible that I'm only allowing candy if they actually eat a real fruit or vegetable. But that just drives the fixation on candy that much more. Uhg. Yeah we have some major health issues in this country and it starts early.

 

[Genx87]

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.

Who is we? This is the type of thinking when we go down the road to totalitarianism. Authoritarians conflate their personal views with what society wants\needs.

It is people like you while I desire a single payer system it scares me. Because it will give you an inroad into deciding how hundreds of millions live. If they dont live by your standard they will be punished.

 

[ch33zw1z]

As a parent, I'm disgusted by the sheer amount of sugar/candy that kids are showered with. I'm throwing away literal buckets of it multiple times a year. Between Easter, Halloween, Christmas and who knows what other celebrations in between my kids are bringing home candy by the fistful. I come across as a candy nazi in my house since I moderate their access to it so much. But their palates have become so conditioned to sugar laden shit the types of food they will actually eat is atrocious. Their diet has become so terrible that I'm only allowing candy if they actually eat a real fruit or vegetable. But that just drives the fixation on candy that much more. Uhg. Yeah we have some major health issues in this country and it starts early.

I concur, my younger son is a junk food monster. Its tough, but he knows that we wont give him junk if hes not eating healthy foods first.

 

[andy2000]

Seems like you cant tax sugar. It is in sausage, barbecue sauce, used as a marinade to soften meat, is in all manner of ice cream and other things. Sugar or its other forms like Molasses, Fructose, etc is found in so many ingredients and dishes. Take spaghetti sauce and ketchup; both of which have sugar in it. Look at salad dressing and that is full of sugar also. Taxing just soda is asinine..

I wish they would tax the sugar in most of those things. I don't want sweet pasta sauce, salad dressing, bread, sausage, salsa, and so many other things that have hidden sugar. One of the main things I look for when buying certain items is sugar content. I always buy the one with the least sugar. Certain things (like salsa) goes back on the shelf if it has any type of sugar in the ingredients list. For other things (like pasta sauce), it's impossible to find unsweetened versions, but there's wide variation on the amount of sugar. In my experience, they typically add sugar to camouflage bad ingredients.

 

[Genx87]

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

People come to MN to buy cloths because it is sales tax free.

 

[woolfe9998]

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.

The thing is, advertising is almost all bullshit. Even the most honest advertising is distorting reality to some degree. I can go along with banning the cigarette advertising because of how toxic that particular product is and the fact it was being marketed toward kids. However, that logic can be extended to lots of other potentially harmful products as well, including many food products. I would keep the restrictions for cigs and alcohol but I'm not sure I would extend it further to other products. There are false advertisement statutes which could probably be enforced more often for when advertising is grossly inaccurate.

 

[crashtech]

@andy2000 , when we make our own marinara, even with our own tomatoes, we find that a small addition of sugar is desirable to balance the flavor. Not a lot, probably about twice as much sugar as salt. Less than a gram per serving.

 

[pmv]

Sugar is an addictive substance being pushed onto people too young to make an intelligent decision as well, I don’t see any difference?

I think the difference is that children will inevitably consume sugar because it's present in fruit and vegetables...and milk and even meat to a much lesser extent. Children wouldn't be smoking without cigarettes being available. You _need_ some amount of sugar, you don't need any amount of cigarette smoke.

But, as I said, maybe it could be applied to 'candy', specifically, but only if one could precisely define that term.

Also, here's an idea - increase inheritance taxes! The Republicans tend to call them 'death taxes' do they not? Just as taxing sugar is intended to reduce sugar consumption, taxing death will surely give people a disincentive to die! Impose a high enough death tax and everyone will adopt a healthy lifestyle!

 

[1prophet]

Until society stops promoting this as acceptable because of bullshit political correctness nonsense

the same way it used to treat this as acceptable

and this as cool

obesity is going to continue to increase, how about a surgeon generals warning against the unhealthiness of being overweight and the potential medical consequences any time some one uses an obese person to promote a product like they do with cigarettes or alcohol.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Until society stops promoting this as acceptable because of bullshit political correctness nonsense

huh? Are you implying she's obese? Looks pretty normal to me.. Have you not seen real obese people, BMI>30-35..?

 

[Zorba]

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

This is the problem with cities going it on their own. It needs to be pushed at at least the state level.

 

[woolfe9998]

I actually agree with you, but the problem is that as we move towards more taxpayer funded healthcare, unhealthy individual decisions will have ever greater negative consequences for others in the form of higher taxes. Once single payer becomes a reality, the government will certainly assert the right to incentivize what it considers healthy behavior, and/or punish unhealthy behavior. This is a natural consequence of us collectively wanting the government to assume responsibility for our care. This Seattle tax is just a foreshadowing of things to come. Note that I'm not necessarily making a value judgment, just anticipating likely consequences as I see them.

Those may be the likely consequences, but they aren't necessary. The bulk of savings from moving to single payer health care don't come from controlling individual behavior. We can have a healthcare system that is vastly more affordable than what we have now without trying to coerce people.

 

[crashtech]

Those may be the likely consequences, but they aren't necessary. The bulk of savings from moving to single payer health care don't come from controlling individual behavior. We can have a healthcare system that is vastly more affordable than what we have now without trying to coerce people.

I don't think there will be one without the other in the long run. It's like having your cake, and eating it, too. That's the rub with implementing collectivist solutions in a society that still fiercely defends individuality, as I see you doing in this instance. The two are only marginally compatible. We could call this tax a boundary clash.