4 ms·
> I suspect it's a class issue: politicians see soda as something that poor, obese people drink, but a white chocolate mocha is not. To drink one of those coff
by Brakenshire 11y ago
> I suspect it's a class issue: politicians see soda as something that poor, obese people drink, but a white chocolate mocha is not.
To drink one of those coffees you have to actually go to Costa Coffee or Starbucks. It's too expensive to drink daily for the vast majority of the population. And most people who go to coffee shops don't drink those anyway. All of those would suggest that the public health effects of the two are vastly different. The tax should apply to both, but from a public health perspective I doubt it matters.
- ceedan 11y agoI see your argument as support for why it should be taxed just as aggressively. The people who can afford those kinds of drinks could also afford the extra bit of taxes. The companies could also afford those taxes, because the markup on those kinds of drinks is absolutely insane. The tax on soda seems to be about correcting behavior and raising money, while the tax on sugary coffee drink seems to be mostly about raising money. And extra 0.10 on a mocha whatever isn't going to stop people from buying them. > And most people who go to coffee shops don't drink that anyway. This isn't true. I worked at a Starbucks while in college and frappuccinos are very very popular. The majority of people who go to Starbucks order drinks with sugar, especially after the morning rush where a many people will just get black coffee... some of those people also add sugar, too. Caramel Frappuccino's and Caramel Macchiato are 2 of the most popular items on the menu, and Frappuccino's are much more popular in the summer.
- Brakenshire 11y ago> I worked at a Starbucks while in college and frappuccinos are very very popular Are you in the UK? There is more of a social stigma on that than in the US.