Sugar taxes reduce soda consumption


Originally published at:


cool, can we start taxing people who pronounce gif as jiff?



There’s a proposed 2c/oz tax coming to Seattle, apparently.


Oh, let’s not start that again.



It might be helpful, but in a city like Philly it doesn’t solve the health problem. The problem lies in food deserts that make it hard to find healthy choices. When faced with starvation or eating pop and chips, pop and chips are going to win out. From there it’s a vicious cycle where you get so used to eating salty-sweet-fat that you don’t even want to try anything else.


Better a heretic than a grammar-traitor.


A “sin tax” for the 21st century.


Oh for Pete’s sake. If you’re going to go there then at least use the appropriate image format.


And as such, shouldn’t happen.


Meh. We have “luxury” taxes on tobacco and alcohol. A line should probably be drawn somewhere but I’m not sure drinks filled with refined sugar is it.


We shouldn’t have those either.


Russia had a great idea with the beard tax. We should definitely look in to that too.


I think there’s an argument to be made that taxation as a way of raising money to offset the externalized costs of harmful products is a legitimate role of government. If sugar taxes are used to fund obesity or diabetes related programs, for instance, or support programs to teach healthy eating and cooking to disadvantaged communities, I’m all for it. But as soon as a “sin tax” is imposed that raises money for the general funding of government, it creates an unhealthy relationship between the “sin” and the government. In effect, it puts the government in a position of not discouraging the behavior because it would affect revenue.


As someone who is obsessed with the theory and practice of exonumia, I thank you for introducing me to this. I might try to implement this in Brooklyn, where beards have become quite a public nuisance!


this just plain can’t happen. Much like lotteries in the US the money is distributed to a pool and never goes to fund education or any of the other programs lotteries claim to help.


And even when they are earmarked for certain things, budgets are fungible.


Most mini-marts and gas stations that sell chips and pop also have water, milk, bread and food items other than chips (pre-packaged meats, jars of Gif peanut butter, etc). Many people buy junk food simply because its tastes good, rather than a lack of other options.


I think a sin tax is meant to have the intention of being cost-prohibitive to the individual by design, while taxing distributors is a pretty widely accepted tax avenue that doesn’t directly impact consumers. I would prefer this was a distribution charge on sugar as a whole, which would drive companies to use less sugar to stay on shelves; I disagree with targeting all drinks.


What do they do about sodas sweetened with substances other than sugar or corn syrup? Where do they draw there line? Or do they?