3 ms·

Right. I am no fan of Coca Cola sugar water, but it's probably true that your weight gain is determined by the totality of how much you eat, not necessarily dr

Right. I am no fan of Coca Cola sugar water, but it's probably true that your weight gain is determined by the totality of how much you eat, not necessarily drinking coca cola per se. So, taxing soft drinks extra rather than, say, all of junk food extra, seems somewhat arbitrary.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
The problem with taxing "all junk food" is that the devil is in the definitions. We can probably all agree on the obvious examples like soda and potato chips, but about the Chinese hot bar at Wegmans? It's certainly worse for my body than the sushi next door, but whether you would call that junk food or not is more a reflection of your values. At least sugary soda is demonstrably problematic, as the human body doesn't sate its appetite from refined sugars as the caloric equivalents of proteins or fats would.
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  right. That's exactly why we shouldn't worry about taxing individual foods. Just tax the food industry as a whole extra, leaving out staples needed to cook at home. Tax the concept of "food as entertainment", so to speak, and make it revenue neutral, so that this is not about overall size of government
onwchristian 11y ago
Honestly, I feel that adding cost (i.e. tax) really wouldn't discourage the drinking of soft drinks to much extent. Often the "cost" of soft drinks aren't even on the menu, and can often run upwards of $3+, and it doesn't seem to discourage things. One area that could "help" (though at the same time I don't think that governments should regulate this), is for instance in the fast food meal concept of the "combo." I drink almost 100% water, and don't like soft drinks. When I occasionally eat fast food, I experience the following: (a) it is often difficult to navigate the menu, since it emphasizes the combos, and sometimes the price of individual items are not clearly labelled, and (b) I spend more time in line explaining what I want, sometimes having to insist several times that I do not want the combo meal. And to clarify, almost every time I've done the math, it works out advantageously from a price perspective for me to avoid the combo instead of just purchasing the combo and requesting water as the beverage. But given this experience, I can see how if you weren't dedicated to drinking water you would concede, and once you've paid for a drink, you "might as well" get a soft drink. I'm also quite surprised at how frequently I run into situations at airports, food courts, sports venues, etc. where you either (a) the only form of water is bottled water and costs as much or more than soft drinks, (b) you can purchase a cup of water, but it costs you as much as a soft drink, or (c) in the most extreme cases water is not even available for consumption even if one wanted to pay. I recently experienced the latter. So perhaps if we were going to regulate something, perhaps it should be ensuring that all food establishments provide water as a beverage, and furthermore if we want to encourage consumption of water perhaps there should be some form of price cap, for instance that it can't be priced more than X% of cost to provide the "service." Though I typically think that regulation should be kept minimal, this may be something that could be good for the public.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

The problem with taxing "all junk food" is that the devil is in the definitions. We can probably all agree on the obvious examples like soda and potato chips, but about the Chinese hot bar at Wegmans? It's certainly worse for my body than the sushi next door, but whether you would call that junk food or not is more a reflection of your values. At least sugary soda is demonstrably problematic, as the human body doesn't sate its appetite from refined sugars as the caloric equivalents of proteins or fats would.

vasilipupkin 11y ago
right. That's exactly why we shouldn't worry about taxing individual foods. Just tax the food industry as a whole extra, leaving out staples needed to cook at home. Tax the concept of "food as entertainment", so to speak, and make it revenue neutral, so that this is not about overall size of government

onwchristian 11y ago

Honestly, I feel that adding cost (i.e. tax) really wouldn't discourage the drinking of soft drinks to much extent. Often the "cost" of soft drinks aren't even on the menu, and can often run upwards of $3+, and it doesn't seem to discourage things. One area that could "help" (though at the same time I don't think that governments should regulate this), is for instance in the fast food meal concept of the "combo." I drink almost 100% water, and don't like soft drinks. When I occasionally eat fast food, I experience the following: (a) it is often difficult to navigate the menu, since it emphasizes the combos, and sometimes the price of individual items are not clearly labelled, and (b) I spend more time in line explaining what I want, sometimes having to insist several times that I do not want the combo meal. And to clarify, almost every time I've done the math, it works out advantageously from a price perspective for me to avoid the combo instead of just purchasing the combo and requesting water as the beverage. But given this experience, I can see how if you weren't dedicated to drinking water you would concede, and once you've paid for a drink, you "might as well" get a soft drink. I'm also quite surprised at how frequently I run into situations at airports, food courts, sports venues, etc. where you either (a) the only form of water is bottled water and costs as much or more than soft drinks, (b) you can purchase a cup of water, but it costs you as much as a soft drink, or (c) in the most extreme cases water is not even available for consumption even if one wanted to pay. I recently experienced the latter. So perhaps if we were going to regulate something, perhaps it should be ensuring that all food establishments provide water as a beverage, and furthermore if we want to encourage consumption of water perhaps there should be some form of price cap, for instance that it can't be priced more than X% of cost to provide the "service." Though I typically think that regulation should be kept minimal, this may be something that could be good for the public.