6 ms·

Personally, I'd really prefer to not pay inflated costs for soda, should I choose to consume it. I am however completely and 100% fine with paying a higher i.e

Personally, I'd really prefer to not pay inflated costs for soda, should I choose to consume it. I am however completely and 100% fine with paying a higher i.e. health insurance premium due to my soda drinking habit (or any other habit that causes my health risk to be higher). I'm just not a big fan of 'sin taxes' -- though I could be persuaded if they were actually put to use in the same way that the health insurance/risk concept would be; I'm just not convinced that's actually what would happen in the long or short term.

komali2 10y ago
I like your idea, but it seems like then the government (or somebody) would have to have a guaranteed way to detect whether or not you're drinking soda, smoking, etc. Seems invasive.
- michaelt 10y ago
  If the only argument for a soda tax is the externalised costs of obesity healthcare, why not just charge people for obesity healthcare? After all, someone who drinks soda and does a lot of exercise or hard work might not impose any cost on the health system - and someone who eats a lot of bacon or home-baked cakes might get obese without drinking any soda.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - marxidad 10y ago
    Obesity isn't strictly a lifestyle choice for everyone afflicted with it.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- stuaxo 10y ago
  If you pay with a bank card or use a loyalty card that exists already. As for the tax, it doesn't need to be applied at the point of sale, but can be further back in the chain.
cantankerous 10y ago
I agree with the idea that sin taxation is stupid in the sense that there's a moral component involved. The tax in this case is essentially an indulgence. That said, I see a benefit in taxing soda and cigarettes in particular because they impose a substantial externalized cost on society that isn't reflected in their price. With smoking its lost productivity for smoking, sickness, secondhand smoke, etc. With soda its increased diabetes, weight, secondary issues (joints, etc.). I do love me some regular Dr. Pepper, but it's so bad for me I rarely drink it any more. (Admission: I still drink diet soda. I had to acquire the taste.)
- tracker1 10y ago
  So those taxes on cigarettes are passed to employers for the lost productivity? And the taxes on sugar will be passed to insurance companies? The answer is of course no to both... so people are being taxed because others are being infringed, but the taxes don't serve those infringed. Also, diet soda has its' own issues... and more fat people are drinking diet soda than regular. -- edit: Also, we don't need to tax soda, just stop subsidizing farming...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikeash 10y ago
    You don't need to pass the tax on to those effected for it to work. As long as people pay something like the costs they impose, they'll only do it when it's worth that cost. After that, it doesn't matter if the money goes to those effected, or the local schools, or road maintenance, or whatever. I agree that not subsidizing sugar production would be a much better step to take here.
    - fokov 10y ago
      Wait..are you suggesting tax something because reason A in order to raise money for thing B where A has absolutely no relation to B? This is why people hate liberals. Why do we need to arbitrarily tax things? Let me guess these are things you don't like or use so you have no problem with increasing taxes on them.
new_hackers 10y ago
Just because you ingest something doesn't mean you will ever get sick. Maybe there are some people that can drink a lot of soda, but would never use the insurance. I agree with the 'sin tax' because it places it closer to the source. There are many, many external variables that will affect the individual before it affects health insurance. If "soda" is "bad", then tax soda. Don't attempt to figure out the cost once it is so far removed from the situation (i.e. don't attempt to measure the flapping of butterfly wings in a hurricane)
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  I think an issue with all of this is that the entire field send unreliable. Until recently a fat tax could have been conceivable. Right now a carb tax seems not unjustified. Since we don't fully understand what's causing it, maybe we should tax non-disease caused obesity? As far as I'm considered nutrition is a hot mess.

komali2 10y ago

I like your idea, but it seems like then the government (or somebody) would have to have a guaranteed way to detect whether or not you're drinking soda, smoking, etc. Seems invasive.

michaelt 10y ago
If the only argument for a soda tax is the externalised costs of obesity healthcare, why not just charge people for obesity healthcare? After all, someone who drinks soda and does a lot of exercise or hard work might not impose any cost on the health system - and someone who eats a lot of bacon or home-baked cakes might get obese without drinking any soda.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- marxidad 10y ago
  Obesity isn't strictly a lifestyle choice for everyone afflicted with it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
stuaxo 10y ago
If you pay with a bank card or use a loyalty card that exists already. As for the tax, it doesn't need to be applied at the point of sale, but can be further back in the chain.

cantankerous 10y ago

I agree with the idea that sin taxation is stupid in the sense that there's a moral component involved. The tax in this case is essentially an indulgence. That said, I see a benefit in taxing soda and cigarettes in particular because they impose a substantial externalized cost on society that isn't reflected in their price. With smoking its lost productivity for smoking, sickness, secondhand smoke, etc. With soda its increased diabetes, weight, secondary issues (joints, etc.). I do love me some regular Dr. Pepper, but it's so bad for me I rarely drink it any more. (Admission: I still drink diet soda. I had to acquire the taste.)

tracker1 10y ago
So those taxes on cigarettes are passed to employers for the lost productivity? And the taxes on sugar will be passed to insurance companies? The answer is of course no to both... so people are being taxed because others are being infringed, but the taxes don't serve those infringed. Also, diet soda has its' own issues... and more fat people are drinking diet soda than regular. -- edit: Also, we don't need to tax soda, just stop subsidizing farming...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeash 10y ago
  You don't need to pass the tax on to those effected for it to work. As long as people pay something like the costs they impose, they'll only do it when it's worth that cost. After that, it doesn't matter if the money goes to those effected, or the local schools, or road maintenance, or whatever. I agree that not subsidizing sugar production would be a much better step to take here.
  - fokov 10y ago
    Wait..are you suggesting tax something because reason A in order to raise money for thing B where A has absolutely no relation to B? This is why people hate liberals. Why do we need to arbitrarily tax things? Let me guess these are things you don't like or use so you have no problem with increasing taxes on them.

new_hackers 10y ago

Just because you ingest something doesn't mean you will ever get sick. Maybe there are some people that can drink a lot of soda, but would never use the insurance. I agree with the 'sin tax' because it places it closer to the source. There are many, many external variables that will affect the individual before it affects health insurance. If "soda" is "bad", then tax soda. Don't attempt to figure out the cost once it is so far removed from the situation (i.e. don't attempt to measure the flapping of butterfly wings in a hurricane)

ajmurmann 10y ago
I think an issue with all of this is that the entire field send unreliable. Until recently a fat tax could have been conceivable. Right now a carb tax seems not unjustified. Since we don't fully understand what's causing it, maybe we should tax non-disease caused obesity? As far as I'm considered nutrition is a hot mess.